TEARFUND AFGHANISTAN ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM

"We at the centre of beneficiary accountability mainstreaming take this to mean how an aid agency engages with its ‘beneficiaries’and other stakeholders.This engagement aims at: Ensuring meaningful involvement and participation; Building relationships;Providing project information in a way that enhances transparency;Develop mechanisms for feedback handling and more so be accountable for the results in ways that enable learning and improvement towards the achievement of its mission. We constanly ask; How do our planning tools, reporting formats and information systems capture the quality of accountability to beneficiaries? Do they actively enable learning for programme improvement? We strongly believe that accountability leads to quality and learning and for these we commit ourselves". Beneficiary Accountability Team, Kabul, Afghanistan (Dec 2008).

13. Sphere Standards Revision

Wednesday, 25 February 2009
The Sphere Project is pleased to announce the start of the
Handbook revision process.

TIME FOR A NEW REVISION
Since the launching of its first edition in 2000, and after the revised edition in 2004, the Sphere Handbook has become one of the most widely recognized tools for improving humanitarian response, not only by NGOs but also, and increasingly, by United Nations agencies, host governments, donor governments and other actors involved in humanitarian response. The success of the Handbook reflects the fact that Sphere is responsive to the needs of people responding to disasters, and is considered a relevant and‘living’ document. For the Sphere Handbook to remain relevant to humanitarian workers and to the populations affected by conflict and calamity, Sphere needs to keep in touch with changing practices in the context of humanitarian work, as well as technical innovations. To this end, and acknowledging the significant changes that have taken place since the 2004 edition, the Sphere Board has decided that the Sphere Project Handbook – Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response – should be revised. The new edition is planned to be published late 2010.

PURPOSE OF THE REVISION
The purpose of the revision process is not to change the qualitative standards, nor to overhaul the Handbook. Rather, it is to update the qualitative and quantitative indicators and guidance notes as needed, enhance linkages between sectors, iron out inconsistencies, faults and important omissions from the 2004 edition. Latest developments in the sector are also to be taken into consideration, such as issues around climate change, disaster risk reduction, protection, the Humanitarian Reform process and the cluster approach, among others.

For further information, please read:
• Revision proposal 2
• Compilation of the feedback about the revision of the Sphere Handbook
• Sphere handbook revision scoping - Compilation of responses

PROCESS & FOCAL POINTS
Following the successful precedent set by earlier revisions, this process will also be broadly consultative, and based on establishing consensus for the changes that will be made. Through a robust and widespread process of engagement among practitioners in each sector, each of the five chapters and the Cross Cutting issues of the current Handbook will be revised by volunteer focal “working groups” (made up of up to ten representatives consisting of key practitioners, researchers, readers/writers), as well as a peer group, and led by a focal point. In addition, the Humanitarian Charter will be reviewed and revised as felt appropriate.

The overall revision process will be managed by a Sphere Project Revision Coordinator. Working closely with the focal points and other members of the Sphere office team, the Coordinator will be responsible for reviewing and finalising the text, for approval by the Sphere Board..
For further information, read:
• Revision Focal Points list


TIMELINE – Key dates
1. Revision Preparatory work March-April 2009
Each Focal Point is expected to prepare an initial preparatory report including:
1. List of the working and peer groups members.
2. Presentation of the latest developments related to the topic since the last edition based on evidence-based research and reports from the field and review of any other standards that may have been developed.
3. Consolidation and analysis of the feedback received from the working group.
4. Major suggestions and recommendations for the new edition.
5. Plan for the revision including the global/regional/local consultation that you intend to have and a simple budget.

For further information, read:
• Revision preparation information

2. First revision Workshop 11-13 May 2009, Geneva
The objective of this launch workshop is to bring ALL focal points together in addition to the handbook editor, project team, and representation from the Sphere Board. During the workshop, each focal point will present the initial findings and recommendations resulted from the preparatory work. We will agree also on the main milestones of the revision and how to coordinate the work of the focal points to ensure inter-sectoral linkages and the appropriate integration of Cross-cutting issues. We will also agree on how to communicate between the Revision coordinator and the different focal points. The handbook editor will provide guidelines and recommendations to facilitate the final editing of the handbook.

3. Mid term workshop 28-30 September 2009 (location to be decided)
The objective of this workshop is to present an outline of the chapter/topic, with an indication of a) proposed changes in structure and content and b) overlap or shared issues that require joint discussions, for example the cross cuttings issues, the evolving common standards and linkages with the technical chapters and emerging issues that need more thoughts. Gaps, overlaps and conflicts are to be identified and resolved.

4. Final workshop 13-15 January 2010 (location to be decided)
The main bulk of the field consultations should occur between May and December 2009 leading to the elaboration of a first draft which will be presented and discussed during this workshop. A first complete draft is expected to be submitted before the workshop in December 2009. The draft should present a consolidation and an analysis of the consultations with the working group and at the filed level. Cross-cutting issues focal points are expected to provide their input in this first draft as well.

5. Final draft ready by end March 2010
The final draft should be submitted to the revision coordinator before the end of March 2010 revised based on the feedback of the January 2010 workshop and through a wide Peer Review across the sector. The final draft will then be handed over for the editorial process with the close involvement of the focal points.

HOW TO GET INVOLVED
Comments are encouraged from national and international NGOs, UN agencies, donor, governments especially those where disaster response frequently takes place, academic institutions and other humanitarian actors. To make sure that your and and/or your agency’s experience, insights and technical expertise inform the Sphere handbook revision, please:
1. Tell us directly what do you think by filling the online handbook revision feedback form, or
2. Get directly in touch with the Focal Points to provide them with your feedback, suggestions and recommendations or to express your interest to be part of the working or peer review groups. The Focal Points (listed here) come from NGOs and UN agencies that have generously donated staff resources. In addition to their regular work with their respective agencies, they are responsible for managing the revision process, or
3. Run a separate local/regional or community level consultation meeting.
Find here some guiding questions to help you run those meetings.

For more information about the process, please write to Aninia Nadig,
Sphere Materials Senior Officer, the Sphere Project, email:

KEY DOCUMENTS
• 1. Revision preparation information
• 2. Revision Focal Points list
• 3. Revision Guidelines
• 4. Revision Proposal
• 5. Compilation of the feedback about the revision of the Sphere Handbook
• 6. Sphere handbook revision scoping - Compilation of responses
• 7. Handbook Revision flyer

Terms of Reference
• ToR for Focal Points
• ToR for common standards focal points 5
• ToR for facilitator revision meetings

12. “How to re-introduce the agency to the local communities”

By Paul Gol

Tearfund UK has been supporting relief, development and capacity building work in
Sudan for over 30 years, working with local partner organizations and, since 1998,
implementing an operational emergency program through its Disaster Management
Team (DMT). Tearfund’s general intervention strategy has been to reduce morbidity
and mortality in targeted populations of Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile
(Shilluk Kingdom and Mobile Nutrition Response locations).

Tearfund is verified compliant with the “People in Aid Code of Best Practice in the
management and support of Aid Personnel” and it is a signatory of the “Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief”.

Tearfund is committed to implementing Humanitarian Accountability Principles and
Standards across all its emergency programmes. This commitment seeks to;
Tearfund UK Disaster Management Team (DMT) is a certified member of HAP International
and is therefore committed to implementing Humanitarian Accountability Principles, HAP1 2007 Standards and Quality Management across all its emergency programmes.

This commitment seeks to;
o Improve the way Tearfund engages with the local communities in decisions
that affect them by striving to enhance participation of affected populations in
order to seek informed consent.
o Share information with beneficiaries in order to promote and improve
transparency through information provision.
o Provide beneficiaries with channels through which concerns can be raised.
There is an ethical commitment to listen, monitor and respond to beneficiary
concerns.
o Ensure that members of staff are provided with a thorough understanding of
Humanitarian Accountability Principles and standards.

Public information sharing
It is Friday the 2nd May 2008 and the time is 9:26 am, the venue is Tearfund Motot Feeding
Centre. A large crowd of women with children either carried in the traditional baby carrier or
walking, expectant mothers and young girls are gathered waiting patiently for the Friday
feeding procedures to begin. Lactating mothers are busy feeding their babies in the last
minute rush before they are called upon to form a queue. The nutrition staff evidently
overwhelmed by the crowd that keeps gathering are seen rushing about to make sure that
things are in place before the actual feeding begins.

At 9:30am Irene, the Nutritionist, motions to the crowd to gather on one side of the compound
in an apparent attempt to hold a public meeting. Five minutes later the large crowd is silent
and Irene through an interpreter informs the now attentive gathering that she would wish to
talk to them first on an important matter. She begins by asking if they understood Tearfund. A
woman responds by saying. “I really don’t know what Tearfund is apart from seeing you
people feeding children and expectant mothers and running the local clinic”. One woman
after another repeats the same and Irene now surprised realises that Tearfund’s four year
presence in Motot had not translated into knowledge about the agency. With this realisation she begins from basics by saying that Tearfund is a Christian humanitarian agency registered in the United Kingdom and operating in many countries of the world including Sudan. She added that Tearfund responds to disaster by implementing emergency programmes. The Motot programme covered Uror county and focused on nutrition feeding for the under five years malnourished children, lactating mothers, primary health care and community health education and promotion. She further emphasised the need for them as the programme beneficiaries or their representatives to give feedback to Tearfund and that it was their right to raise concerns or complaints to enable Tearfund to address them and for improvement in the service. She said that no one would be victimised for raising complaints.

In response the women appreciated the work of Tearfund and particularly the assistance in the
drilling of boreholes and the local Primary Health Care Unit. They said that the two facilities
had greatly reduced the burden on women. Irene informed them that during the next meeting she would talk about their rights and entitlements, Tearfund staff and complaints handling mechanism.

Key Learning Points
~Humanitarian agencies, Tearfund included, make assumptions that they are known by the
community.
~Beneficiaries desire to know more about us (Tearfund) what we stand for and what we
intend to do and above all how we intend to do it, what it is that is community stake.
~When we talk about ourselves openly, communities are able to pick our perception of
ourselves and as a result and are likely to trust us more and thereby endeavour to build better
working relationship with us (Tearfund).

For further information contact:
Paul Gol
Dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org or paulgol@socialwork.net

11. Notes on Feedback Handling Mechanism

By Paul Gol
March 2008.

What?
The Feedback Handling and Response procedures provide step by step on what can be done in different circumstances when stakeholders raise complaints or concerns about Tearfund staff or about Tearfund’s humanitarian action. They clarify roles and channels of communication available in such circumstances. Documentation of concerns is also important to ensure reference and full implementation.

Why?
The purpose of this procedure is to provide a clear, consistent and accessible means of addressing concerns about staff and the services provided by Tearfund. These procedures ensure prompt response to concerns raised. They would also facilitate compliance with prescribed standards and rights of beneficiaries and to improve on programme performance.

Complainants for example may not come forward unless they trust the agency to an extent that it will take the issue seriously and protect him/her from potential reprisal. The agency members of staff need to create an environment, culture and related systems that promote trust among both staff and between the staff and the local community.

The procedures for giving feedback or raising concerns need to be accessible to all. Language, age, gender, physical ability, faith, level of literacy, culture or job role should not hinder access to the mechanisms. For those women and children who have an impairment or disability it is essential that they have a means of being heard and that lack of mobility or verbal communication does not exclude them.

Mechanisms such as suggestion boxes should be put in place through wide consultation so that anonymous concerns can be made. In addition other measures need to be developed so that those who are not literate can also raise concerns, e.g. Establishing a system of beneficiary advocates.

Note
It is particularly important that, where the complainant is a beneficiary, the staff member or the accountability focal point receiving the complaint considers whether the beneficiary has immediate needs requiring attention.

Recording of information
Information (concerns or feedback) that is referred to via this mechanism needs to be as clear as possible. It may be used in subsequent disciplinary actions against a staff or for programme improvement and adjustments hence the need to make a detailed record, including:
~The nature of the concern or feedback.
~A description of events (If applicable).
~An accurate account of what was said by the stakeholder in his/her own words.
~Any observations made by staff member or designated Beneficiary Accountability focal point receiving the concern of feedback.
~Time, location and dates given.
~Whether any one else knows or has been given the information or are affected by the concern.

Procedures for making/receiving a concern or feedback.
It is the responsibility of the staff member, designated Beneficiary Accountability focal point or the Beneficiary Reference Group to solicit for concerns and feedback from stakeholders and to report via the process outlined in the procedures proposed as follows:

1. The main point of contact should a member of BRG, local community structure or a designated Beneficiary Accountability (BA) focal point at the community level.

2. If the stakeholder genuinely believes that s/he would be victimised or s/he has no confidence in the above to respond appropriately to the concern, then the concern should be raised directly with the team leader (Area Co-ordinator) or designated project Accountability focal point at the field level.

3. In exceptional circumstances, the complaint could also be made to the shurah (Local Community Council) or the Community Development council if the beneficiary or complainant genuinely believes that raising the matter directly with the agency representatives would not be effective, or could result in victimization, or if s/he has already disclosed the matter to the agency but no effective action has been taken.

4. It is good practice that the concern should be recorded. This can be in a log book and should be signed and dated. The staff or BA designated focal point must ensure that the individual who raises a concern is informed of the Tearfund’s policy on confidentiality and the right to speak out and to receive feedback.

5. Once a concern is made to BRG member or BA focal point who receives the information he/she should immediately report it to Accountability Focal Point or the Area Co-ordinator.

6. Once a concern is received the Area Co-ordinator or his/her appointee will consider the appropriate steps to take, including the initiation of preliminary inquiry or provide a response immediately.

7. Any inquiry that is undertaken must be completed and findings shared. In the event that a concern does not warrant a full investigation, the project may nonetheless be asked to take a number of steps to address concerns in other ways, (for example, addressing matters of poor practice via training or a change in procedures).

8. Finally the stakeholder must be given feedback at a maximum two weeks from the date the complaint was lodged.


For further information contact:
Paul Gol, Accountability Officer,
E-mail:dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org

10.Afghanistan DMT Accountability,Quality and Learning Strategy

By Paul Gol

Background

Country context: Nation in crisis.

Afghanistan, (which literally means Land of the Afghan and Afghans mean mountain dwellers) is a mountainous land-locked country located in Central Asia. It has a history and culture that goes back over 5000 years. Throughout its long, splendid, and sometimes chaotic history, this area of the world has been known for wars and disasters which include; floods, earthquakes and drought.

Afghanistan is a heterogeneous nation, in which there are four major ethnic groups: Pashtoons, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. Numerous other minor ethnic groups (Nuristanis, Baluchis, Turkmens, etc.) also call Afghanistan their home. While the majority of Afghans (99%) belong to the Islamic faith, there are also small pockets of Sikhs, Hindus and even some Jews.

Tearfund in Afghanistan

Tearfund UK established a Disaster Management Team (DMT) for Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan in 2001 in response to drought and conflict. This initial response focused mainly on Water and Sanitation in camps for refugees and Internally Displaced People and work with resettling communities. From 2006 the programme has expanded to Kapisa and Jawzjan provinces.

The current sectors in the Afghanistan DMT are water, sanitation and health promotion in Kandahar, Disaster Risk Reduction and sanitation in Kapisa, and Food Security and livelihoods in northern Jawzjan Province.

Accountability to Beneficiaries
Tearfund is verified compliant with the “People in Aid Code of Best Practice in the management and support of Aid Personnel” and it is a signatory of the “Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief”. Tearfund is committed to implementing Humanitarian Accountability Principles, HAP[1] 2007 Standards and Quality Management across all its emergency programmes.

This commitment seeks to;

1. Improve the way Tearfund engages with the local communities in decisions that affect them by striving to enhance participation of affected populations in order to seek informed consent.

2. Share information with beneficiaries in order to promote and improve transparency through information provision.

3. Provide beneficiaries with channels through which concerns can be raised. There is an ethical commitment to listen, monitor and respond to beneficiary concerns.

4. Ensure that members of staff are provided with a thorough understanding of Tearfund’s values and standards and accountability principles and standards.

Afghanistan Programme Strategy on Beneficiary Accountability
In an effort to ensure Accountability to Beneficiaries in all its field locations in Afghanistan, Tearfund has recruited an Accountability Officer whose main role will be to comprehensively provide operational support in the implementation of the HAP Principles and Standards on Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management and to integrate the activities set out in a separate action plan of each project. The aim of accountability in Afghanistan is to achieve genuine mutual accountability with people in need

A. Accountability Structure

The programme will set up a Beneficiary Accountability Team (BAT) comprising of selected individuals from all sectors to be based at Kabul Programme office. The Programme will further identify, through the respective Area Co-ordinators and Project Managers, two members of staff to be Accountability Focal Points (AFP) from among the existing staff in each of the field locations. One of whom MUST be a woman. The Accountability Focal Points in wide consultation with the local communities will facilitate the formation of Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs) where applicable or provide training for the existing project structure such as Community Emergency Response Teams. They will facilitate the formation of comprehensive communication systems to enhance project transparency and to set up Feedback Handling and Response Mechanism specific to the local context.

The Beneficiary Accountability Team (BAT) shall comprise of staff from the main sectors of the programme i.e. Watsan 1, DRR 2, the Accountability Officer and the Programme Information Officer. The role of the BAT will include but not limited to;
i).Ensure that each sector is adhering to Accountability Principles and Standards.
ii).Carry out baseline assessments on Accountability and Impact Assessment.
iii).Deliberate on feedback from the various field locations and advice the programme.
iv).Develop programme learning on quarterly basis.
v).Liaise closely with the Field Accountability Focal Points.
vi).Develop a systematic liaison with Tearfund partners.

The Accountability Focal Points (AFP) will be taken through training on the Seven Practical Steps to Beneficiary Accountability with the aim creating a corporate understanding on Beneficiary Accountability and equipping them with practical tools for the implementation of accountability. These tools will include; Accountability Self Assessment. Beneficiary involvement,
Information sharing, Feedback Handling and Response Mechanism.

The role of the AFP will include but not limited to;

1.Create awareness on Beneficiary Accountability approach as adopted by Tearfund among the local stakeholders.

2.Facilitate the formation and training of the Beneficiary Reference Groups and other structures created by Tearfund.

3.Solicit for feedback from the BRGs and collate information from the field with specific reference to concerns and feedback and to manage responses appropriately in consultation with the Area Co-ordinators.

4.Manage conflicts resolution in the community that are linked to the project.

The Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs) is indeed not a new concept in Tearfund. Tested and generaly accepted in the North Kenya Programme the BRGs refer to a community selected group whose main responsibilities include;

1. To receive and share information at the community level with the beneficiaries and with the agency.

2. Solicit for feedback and to share with the AFPs.

3. To ensure that beneficiaries and other stakeholders are consulted and meaningfully involved in the Project Cycle Management.

4. To monitor projects in liaison with the stakeholders and Tearfund project leadership for purposes of remote monitoring in areas Tearfund is unable due to security concerns b on the ground all the time.
In an insecure, volatile and terrorist environment like Afghanistan where public information sharing can pose a risk to the agency, the BRGs come handy as a beneficiary focal point on issues of accountability. These groups shall be trained on the beneficiary accountability process.

B. Capacity Building.
a). Awareness Raising: The Afghanistan Programme will take advantage of every opportunity to raise awareness among staff and other stakeholders on Beneficiary Accountability as one of the twelve standards Tearfund has committed itself to in its 2008 Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF).This awareness creation strategy will focus on progressively developing a culture of Accountability within all the sectors of the programme. The programme shall develop handbills and flyers and where budget allows T/shirts will be printed for the purpose of raising awareness. The expected outcomes would include;

1. Knowledge: Raised awareness of what Accountability is and its relevance to the emergency intervention; Basic elements of Accountability; Different Accountability initiatives; the individual and institutional responsibility to Accountability.

2. Attitude: Understanding of giving power back to the beneficiaries through Accountability practices; the importance of accountability to project quality; simple and easy thing to do; “I can make a difference”.

3. Facilitate the understanding of the dynamics of relationships both open and hidden within communities to help us better understand the power structures and processes for making community decisions when seeking informed consent.

b). Training.
The Afghanistan Accountability office in consultation with all the sectors and field locations will conduct training session with the aim of enhancing skills to give staff more ability to;
1. Use tools in the Good Enough Guide on Accountability and Impact Assessment and the Good Practice Guide on Beneficiary Accountability.
2. Link tools with activities.
3.Carry out a self Assessment of Accountability and Impact measurement capacity.
4.Plan for programme activities to reinforce accountability, quality and learning.
5. Implement and practice accountability.

For further information contact;

Paul Gol,

dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org

9. Basic Elements of Beneficiary Accountability

At a minimum, Afghanistan DMT project staff should:

Provide information to beneficiaries and other stakeholders on agency’s background and objectives, project plans, targeted beneficiaries and assistance entitlements.

Consult with beneficiaries and other stakeholders at the beginning of the project and regularly throughout the project. This consultation will be about:
i). Needs and aspirations of beneficiaries. ii). The project plans. iii). The entitlement of beneficiaries. iv). Feedback from stakeholders on project plans and expected results.
v). Project to report to beneficiaries and other stakeholders on progress.
vi).Beneficiaries to explain to the agency how the project is meeting their needs and the difference the project is making in their lives.

Establish systematic feedback handling mechanisms that enable the agency to:
Explain feedback handling mechanisms to beneficiaries and stakeholders.
Respond, adapt and evolve in response to feedback received, and explain to all stakeholders the changes made and/or why change was not possible.

Establish systems to capture learning from the programme. The basic principle is to document feedback and to continually reflect on learning.

For further information contact;

Paul Gol, dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org

8. Setting up Feedback and Response Mechanism in North Kenya

In August 2007 Monica Blagescu and Emily Rogers from the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) worked alongside Tearfund to conduct an accountability assessment of their programme in North Kenya. Over the course of ten days the field team visited four different project sites, spoke with staff and local people, made observations, and reviewed project documentation. This case study reflects the practice that was documented by HAP during this visit, and has been approved by Tearfund for wider dissemination.

North Kenya programme background
The prolonged drought affecting the Horn of Africa has threatened the lives of 11 million people in the region, 3 million of who live in Kenya. The impact was most severe in pastoral areas of Northern Kenya where malnutrition levels exceeded emergency thresholds and livestock losses of up to 70% were reported, resulting in mass migration of pastoralists in search of water, pasture, jobs and relief aid.
Tearfund responded to the drought in Northern Kenya, Marsabit District, by firstly implementing an emergency therapeutic and supplementary feeding nutrition programme (June ‘06 to April ‘07). Later a Livelihoods and Food Security, and Water and Sanitation project (April to October ‘07) was launched to focus on longer term needs of the targeted communities. The former focused on restocking of camels in ten communities, vegetable garden and support to women groups in two communities, while the water and sanitation project focused on the construction of four earth dams through cash for work, of which three have been completed.

The need for feedback and response mechanisms
To facilitate feedback from the communities, in particular the more vulnerable members, the Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs) were established in each of Tearfund’s ten project areas. The BRGs represented an independent group of individuals who were tasked with receiving and processing queries, complaints and feedback from committees and their community, and with working in close consultation with Tearfund staff so that concerns were swiftly addressed.
While the BRGs provided a channel for receiving verbal complaints and feedback, the Beneficiary Accountability Officer felt there maybe a need to provide an alternative route that allowed more sensitive complaints to be raised. As a result the need and appropriateness of setting up complaint boxes was explored.
The suggestion box in Korr was attached to the wall of a shop in the centre of the town. Residents were able to use this box to raise issues related to Tearfund’s work.

Setting up the mechanism
The idea of setting up complaint boxes was discussed in each community with the BRGs, using the example of ballot boxes to explain the concept. While some felt levels of illiteracy were too high in their communities, others felt the boxes could provide a valuable alternative method for raising complaints. Based on these discussions it was established that the word “complaint” was seen as negative and offensive, thus potentially preventing beneficiaries from raising concerns due to fear the agency may withdraw support.
As a result it was decided to set up locked suggestion boxes in five out of the ten areas where Tearfund was operational in North Kenya – in Kargi, Mount Kulal, Korr, Ilaut and Ngurunit.
The site of each suggestion box was chosen by the area chief, in conjunction with the BRGs, taking into account access, security of potential users, and where a strong wall was available to hold the box! The area chief was needed in order to give final authority on the use of the wall and consequently the boxes were placed on shops, at feeding centres and on the chief’s compound.
A summary of the purpose of the suggestion boxes was displayed on one side, and the BRGs also raised awareness within the communities on their use.

The Feedback handling process established in these areas included;
1 - Written complaints were placed into the locked suggestions box.
2 - A Tearfund staff member checked the box roughly every two weeks. Due to the remote access of certain locations the boxes were checked when opportunities arose, rather than on a regular given day. The keys for the boxes were held by Tearfund, and by one member of the BRG in each community, so ensuring staff could always empty the box even if they forgot their keys.
3– The feedback was first discussed with the BRGs and the relevant committees. The response from Tearfund was then posted on the community notice board for all to refer to.
4- The relevant Tearfund staff member, or the Area Coordinator reviewed all complaints. These were then filed for the record.

Resources required
In addition to time needed to sensitize the BRGs on the suggestion box, the cost of setting up the 5 boxes was estimated to be $80.

Results observed
Complaints were mainly anonymous and over the initial 3 months Tearfund received 16 complaints via the five suggestion boxes, 15 of these were deemed relevant to Tearfund’s work. These complaints mainly focused on a recent recruitment process for agricultural extension workers, and on the selection process for camel beneficiaries. While the total number of complaints to date was few, staff felt the suggestion boxes were instrumental in hearing views from the community that would not have been voiced during open meetings. For example, in Mount Kulal some candidates felt the chief had unfairly influenced the extension worker selection process, and effected who was chosen for the positions. This issue, which would not have been brought up in a public meeting, was raised through the suggestion boxes.
As a result Tearfund was able to clarify the recruitment procedure, reassuring the community that a fair process had been conducted, and addressing the concerns before they escalated.
This positive aspect of the suggestion box was echoed by the BRGs, who also felt usage was closely linked to the type and levels of project activities being implemented at that time.

Lessons Learnt
• An effective complaint and response mechanism needs to be able to deal with ‘worst case scenario complaints’ that may raise more sensitive issues (i.e. complaints against staff behavior, allegations of fraud etc) in a safe and confidential way. During the design phase, it is worth considering who will see the complaint, who will be responsible for reviewing and addressing it to avoid any conflict of interest and protect the complainant. For example in North Kenya there was concern from some communities that the BRG member who held the key of the suggestion box may remove some complaints, or could recognize the handwriting on others and so know who submitted it. As a result of this feedback, the Beneficiary Accountability Officer reviewed who should hold the keys, and decided to restrict it to Tearfund staff only.
• Having different channels for individuals to raise concerns gives beneficiaries a choice, and enables them to use the method they prefer. In North Kenya the suggestion boxes, which some felt appealed to the more educated few in the community who were able to quickly grasp the concept, were complemented by the BRGs. It is important the different channels are integrated, and that complaints received through verbal channels are considered in the same way as written complaints. For example, in Northern Kenya the Beneficiary Accountability Officer planned to give each BRG a logbook to improve the way they recorded with verbal concerns. This would ensure the different complaints are captured; so common themes can be identified and then used to feed back into project and activity design. In addition the logbooks would help monitor responses to complaints and improve the chance that all are dealt with.
• Clear documentation of the mechanism established and the process involved in setting this up will serve as a basis against which the mechanism can be assessed and modifications can be made. In addition, this will also help all staff to understand the purpose and their role in the process.
• Low numbers of complaints may be due to programmatic issues (i.e. high levels of satisfaction or delays in project onset), or individuals may wish to see how the agency deals with complaints (i.e. speed of response, levels of confidentiality, lack of reprisals) before raising more sensitive issues. Alternatively it may indicate a lack of awareness about the purpose of the complaint and response mechanism and process followed. Clear information dissemination on the mechanism is vital both to inform individuals of the steps involved and to reassure them of confidentiality, security and non-retaliation. Careful engagement and monitoring is needed to distinguish between possible causes of low usage.
• It is important to clearly communicate what constitutes a valid complaint. For example individuals should be able to raise concerns about staff members, the work of Tearfund, how they feel they are being treated etc. In North Kenya it was soon realized that among the communities, raising concerns about an agency that is giving away something for free was a foreign concept. As a result of this, the Beneficiary Accountability Officer is working with the BRGs to further sensitize communities on the purpose of the suggestion boxes, and what individuals can complain about.

For more information contact:
Paul Gol, Beneficiary Accountability Officer, Tearfund: dmt-nkenyahap@tearfund.org
Monica Blagescu, Field Representative, HAP: mblagescu@hapinternational.org
Emily Rogers, Field Support Officer, HAP: erogers@hapinternational.org

7. Improving Beneficiary Accountability in North Kenya

As one of the founding members of Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), Tearfund is committed to implementing HAP’s Principles of Accountability across all emergency programmes. In order to improve the way it engages local communities in decisions that affect them, shares information with beneficiaries, and provides them with a channel through which concerns can be raised, Tearfund has piloted a new approach for its emergency response programmes in Pakistan and North Kenya – by recruiting a Beneficiary Accountability Officer.

In August 2007 Monica Blagescu and Emily Rogers from the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) worked alongside Tearfund to conduct an accountability assessment of their programme in North Kenya. Over the course of ten days the field team visited four different project sites, spoke with staff and local people, made observations, and reviewed project documentation. This case study reflects the practice that was documented by HAP during this visit, and has been approved by Tearfund for wider dissemination.

North Kenya programme background
The prolonged drought affecting the Horn of Africa has threatened the lives of 11 million people in the region, 3 million of who live in Kenya. The impact was most severe in pastoral areas of Northern Kenya where malnutrition levels exceeded emergency thresholds and livestock losses of up to 70% were reported, resulting in mass migration of pastoralists in search of water, pasture and jobs.
Tearfund responded to the drought in Northern Kenya, Marsabit District, by firstly implementing an emergency therapeutic and supplementary feeding nutrition programme (June ‘06 to April ‘07). Later, two more projects – Livelihoods and Food Security, and Water and Sanitation (April to October ‘07) were launched to focus on longer-term needs of the targeted communities. The former focused on restocking of camels in ten communities, vegetable garden and support to women groups in two communities, while the water and sanitation project focused on the construction of four earth dams through cash for work, of which three have been completed.

Allocated resources
The Beneficiary Accountability Officer for the North Kenya programme started in his role in November ’06. The aim of this position was to provide operational support in order to improve accountability practices, integrating them into existing project plans. The focus was on three main areas:
a) To improve levels of community participation, for example by enabling beneficiary involvement in project design (HAP Standard Benchmark 3).
b) To increase transparency and information sharing, for example by ensuring that programme information is disseminated to communities (HAP Standard Benchmark 2)
c) To establish a mechanism for community feedback (HAP Standard Benchmark 5).
The cost of this approach during the later stage of the response from April to October ’07 was less than 1.5% of the total project budget. This included the costs for the new staff member and associated activities, including training of the Beneficiary Reference Groups (see below), and production of community notice boards and suggestion boxes.

Brief summary of main activities and achievements
The Beneficiary Accountability Officer, managed by the Area Coordinator, was responsible for the design and implementation of an action plan to improve accountability across the North Kenya programme. He was tasked with ensuring that beneficiaries were involved in the design of the assistance they receive, and there was a mechanism for them to give feedback to Tearfund. In addition he was responsible for facilitating information dissemination to communities, and ensuring good practice was reviewed and shared. As part of this he produced monthly reports, which fed into the regular programme progress reports for the headquarters. Annex 1 shows the full job description for this position.
Below is a summary of the Beneficiary Accountability Officer’s main achievements, with support from and in collaboration with the programme team:

Improving levels of participation
Through a process of community consultation before project implementation, livestock and water committees were established to:
1. Provide technical support throughout the surveying and implementation stage.
2. Establish a list of vulnerability criteria and identify beneficiaries based on these criteria.
3. Follow-up with maintenance after project closure.

The additional responsibility given to the individuals in these committees risked potential conflicts of interest and abuse of power, resulting in beneficiaries identified based on personal connections or clan links rather than based on needs. Therefore to address this concern, and to support Tearfund with hearing the voices of the less vocal in the communities, independent Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs) were established at the ten project locations to be the ‘eyes’ of the community. The BRGs, each comprised of five individuals, were tasked with receiving and processing queries, complaints and feedback from the communities in relation to the implementation of the project, working in close consultation with Tearfund staff so that concerns were swiftly addressed. In particular, the BRGs were able to support Tearfund with hearing the views of the more vulnerable groups, who may have been absent or unable to voice their opinions during public meetings.
They BRGs were soon given local names by the communities, indicating the group was viewed as being both relevant and important. In Rendile areas, the BRGs were coined “Rumyeito” meaning those who seek truth and justice, in Samburu areas they were coined "Ndedei” meaning truth. Photo © Paul Gol, Tearfund

Transparency and information sharing
While the committees and BRGs played a role in disseminating information to the wider community, notice boards were also established at each of the ten project sites. The location of each board was chosen during a consultative meeting, taking into account security, proximity and the long-term use of the boards. As a result, they were generally placed near water points, community buildings (churches and meeting points) and shops. The notice boards included background information on Tearfund; results of recent relevant surveys (for example on malnutrition levels); the names of the water and livestock committees’ and BRGs’ members; and a list of beneficiaries, how they were selected, and how individuals could question those selected.
While literacy in these areas is low, community members often reported that those who could read were able to tell others the content and up-date them when new information was added. The very oral nature of these communities facilitated information sharing.
The Tearfund notice board in Korr is close to the water point in the centre of the town. The camel beneficiaries list was pinned to this board, explaining the selection criteria used and giving community members one week to raise concerns. Feedback from the community revealed there was high level of satisfaction with the transparency in the camel distribution project.
For more details see case study: Tearfund North Kenya Programme, Community notice boards to increase transparency

Channels for the community to raise concerns
The Beneficiary Reference Groups provided a means through which community members could raise concerns verbally. However, after consultation with the BRGs, it was also felt that in some locations there was a need to provide an alternative channel through which more sensitive concerns could be raised.
As a result, five suggestion boxes were put in place, so that written concerns could be received and reviewed by Tearfund. Responses to those concerns relevant to the entire community were posted on the notice boards for all to see.
For more details see case study: Tearfund North Kenya Programme, Suggestion boxes for community feedback

Benefits observed
Observation and feedback from the communities showed there were a number of positive outcomes as a result of these new practices:
1. Conflict resolution – the BRGs and suggestion boxes were instrumental in providing feedback to Tearfund and highlighting areas of community concern. For example, during the recruitment of community extension workers some candidates felt the local chief had unfairly influenced the process. This issue, which would not have been brought up in a public meeting, was raised through the suggestion boxes. As a result, Tearfund was able to clarify the recruitment process, reassuring the community that a fair process had been conducted, and addressing the concerns before they escalated.
2. Strengthening levels of trust in Tearfund – the use of notice boards in particular was felt to improve communication, and community feedback revealed high levels of satisfaction with Tearfund’s levels of transparency. The public list of the beneficiaries identified to receive assistance reassured those individuals that the verbal promises would come to fruition, helping them to plan for the future.
3. Community empowerment - as a result of Tearfund’s practices, some communities were able to demand greater accountability from other organisations working in the same area.

Lessons learnt
• The Beneficiary Accountability Officer was a valuable addition to the North Kenya programme, and was able to kick-start improved accountability activities. Accountability needs to be integrated into all other staff roles, from the guards and cooks (who may be the first point of contact for many in the community), to the sector coordinators (who need to factor additional activities into proposals, budgets, field visits etc). A dedicated Beneficiary Accountability Officer can act as a catalyst for this, supporting other staff to integrate accountability into their activities.
• Commitment from senior managers and clarity on the Beneficiary Accountability Officer role, responsibilities, expectations and how this position relates to the others in the team are needed from the start so that other staff do not perceive the new Officer to have a policing/enforcement role.
• Budgets must incorporate lines for accountability related activities so that the appropriate funding is available. Activities may include holding community meetings, establishing and training committees or reference groups, constructing information notice boards, training of staff etc. Tearfund is aiming to include an “Accountability and Quality” budget line in all programme proposals, with a suggested target of 2-5% of the total project budget.
• There is a need to sensitize staff on beneficiary accountability from the onset of a programme, so that strong links with the community can be built at all stages of the project cycle. This is particularly important during project design, to ensure the project proposal and budget is tailored to the needs and wants of each community.
• Based on their past experiences working with other agencies, the North Kenya Tearfund staff felt improving accountability would involve a shift in the way many agencies currently operate. As additional time is needed in order to consult with communities and ensure full participation in decisions, staff felt this must be reflected by longer lead times to deadlines from headquarters for project proposals from the field.
• The process of involving communities, from setting up of committees to establishing notice boards, is as important as the outcome. It is the process that will determine how meaningful the outcomes are, and so the impact these will have on improving the strength of relationship between the agency and the community.

For more information contact:
Paul Gol, Beneficiary Accountability Officer, Tearfund: dmt-nkenyahap@tearfund.org
Monica Blagescu, Field Representative, HAP: mblagescu@hapinternational.org
Emily Rogers, Field Support Officer, HAP: erogers@hapinternational.org

6. The HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management

The HAP Standards in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management was adopted by HAP-International on 30th January 2007. These standards are practical means through which agencies that adopt them can make continual improvement in Accountability and the quality of Humanitarian work.
Standard 1: The agency shall establish an accountability framework and QMS in accordance with the HAP Standard.
Standard 2: The agency shall publish information on a). It’s organisational background b). It’s accountability frame work and QMS c).It’s Humanitarian plans and d). It’s progress.
Standard 3: The agency shall seek the informed consent of intended beneficiaries through enabling beneficiary representatives to participate in progress decisions.
Standard 4: The agency shall monitor staff competence and establish a system for performance improvement.
Standard 5: The agency shall establish and implement effective complaints handling procedures (Tearfund use Feedback Handling and Response Mechanisms) that are accessible and safe for intended beneficiaries.
Standard 6: The agency shall establish a continuous improvement progress for its accountability and quality management systems.

Posted by Paul Gol

5. Mainstreaming Accountability and its Challenges

By Paul Gol
What is mainstreaming?
The word mainstreaming is obviously derived from the metaphor of a small, isolated flow of water being drawn into the mainstream of a river where it will expand to flow smoothly without loss or diversion. Therefore ‘mainstreaming beneficiary accountability’ describes a process to fully incorporate accountability principles and standards into relief and development policy and practice. It means radically consulting and involving beneficiaries, sharing information and providing feedback handling mechanisms with beneficiaries so that it becomes normal practice, fully institutionalised within an agency’s relief and development agenda.

What is beneficiary accountability?
Beneficiary Accountability is a process of ensuring programme transparency, participation, feedback and learning with beneficiaries.

Mainstreaming beneficiary accountability has four purposes:
1.Improve the way an agency engages with the local communities in decisions that affect them by striving to enhance participation of affected populations in order to seek informed consent.
2.Share information with beneficiaries in order to promote and improve transparency through information provision.
3.Provide beneficiaries with channels through which concerns can be raised. There is an ethical commitment to listen, monitor and respond to beneficiary concerns.
4.Ensure that disaster management teams are provided with a thorough understanding of Accountability and Quality Management Principles and Standards.

Defining levels of attainment
Level 1: ‘Little or no progress’ Level 1 represents little or no progress with mainstreaming. The organisation undertakes beneficiary accountability in an ad hoc manner and has little or no awareness of the relevance and importance of adopting a systematic approach to accountability within its relief and development processes.

Level 2: ‘Awareness of needs’ Level 2 refers to an early stage of mainstreaming. The organisation has a growing level of awareness and understanding of the value and requirements of mainstreaming accountability to beneficiaries, and recognises the need for action. (It may also have decided to take action. This may include joining an accountability initiative or recruiting or assigning or designating accountability to a member of staff.)

Level 3: ‘Development of solutions’ Level 3 refers to an intermediate stage in mainstreaming, where there are identifiable actions to consolidate the gains made in Level 2. The organisation is developing plans and tools to address the requirements of integrating accountability into its relief and development processes. This includes an accountability and quality management system and accountability action plan.

Level 4: ‘Full integration’ Level 4 refers to a situation where beneficiary accountability is fully absorbed into relief and development processes. The organisation places high importance on accountability to beneficiaries in a sustainable programme of action at multiple levels and within multiple sectors, and there is a comprehensive demonstration of practice. Thus Level 4 describes a situation where beneficiary accountability is ‘institutionalised’. However, this is not to suggest that an optimum level of attainment has occurred: there is still a need for further progress. The process of mainstreaming should be viewed as open-ended: while organisations should aim to achieve Level 4, they should also aim to make continuous improvements to their approach. Standard 6 of the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management states in part that “The agency shall establish a continuous improvement progress for its accountability and quality management systems.”

Sufficient ownership by stakeholders, practical and simple skills and knowledge and financial resources will be crucial if an organisation is to be successful in mainstreaming. Some of the finance required to support the mainstreaming process could be raised by organisations allocating a percentage of their humanitarian assistance budget (and/or development budget) to beneficiary accountability including the process of mainstreaming. Some donor organisations already have levies on their humanitarian assistance budgets in place.

Staff ‘ownership’ of both beneficiary accountability and the process of mainstreaming itself is key to attaining ‘full integration’ and hence mainstreaming accountability to beneficiaries will to a significant extent dependent on enthusiastic and well informed staff continually promoting it. If staff ‘own’ accountability as their responsibility, it has an excellent chance of becoming sustainable within the organisation.

It is prudent therefore to anticipate potential barriers to ownership and consider how to address them, in order that mainstreaming accountability may be regarded as an organisational asset rather than a liability or a policing mechanism as observed in one Tearfund Programme.

Potential barriers to ownership include:
1. WORKLOAD: Staff may be concerned that an additional crosscutting issue to be
mainstreamed is likely to result in a considerable amount of extra work for them, when they are already likely to be very busy. To address this, the organisation should recognise that the process of incorporating beneficiary accountability at all levels and in all sectors will require considerable additional work and wider responsibility. Therefore budget support may be needed to employ additional staff to cope with the increased demands.
Another way to avoid over-burdening staff is to clarify and strengthen the links between accountability and other crosscutting issues to be mainstreamed. Also, accountability tools and methodologies should be made directly relevant to and, where possible, integrated with existing structures, procedures and activities rather than developed as separate processes that place a heavy burden on overworked staff.

2. LACK OF LEADERSHIP: A beneficiary accountability ‘champion’ within an organisation is important to promote and strengthen accountability both internally and externally. Without such a person/s, the issue will struggle to gain profile in the short term, and in the long term it may be difficult to achieve coordination, monitoring of progress across the organisation and engagement in strategic processes in order to mainstream the issue into normal business.
Equally important is the good leadership of line managers of relevant departments who are, in the long run, in the best position to facilitate the engagement and ownership of their staff (however inspiring and facilitative the champion may be). Good leadership does not need to be coercion; but lack of leadership or the disinterest of line managers in a subject that is meant to be mainstreamed sends a clear signal to their staff that they do not need to apply themselves, even if there is a formal policy of mainstreaming.

Moreover, for the staff member keen to mainstream the issue into their work, lack of interest by their line manager can be a major disincentive. Therefore, an important and effective combination of leadership is an institutional champion and line managers who take ownership and can then facilitate and encourage ownership in those whom they manage.

3. MISTRUST: Deep resentment can arise when accountability work plans and framework and handed down to staff without full consultation and acceptance. Such a top-down approach ignores the opportunity for individuals at various levels in an organisation to actively contribute to their design. In Tearfund Southern Sudan for example, the Area Co-ordinators were involved in the designing of the Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management Framework. In North Kenya the Accountability Officer was viewed as policing staff on their individual performance and targets. By fully involving relevant staff in the entire process of such developments there is a genuine opportunity for sustainable targets to be reached and maintained.

Also, it is vital for organisations to recognise that where rigid control is exercised, managers’ all-important trust in staff to reach targets can decrease as a direct consequence. Therefore the aim must be to inform and educate and involve staff in the objectives of mainstreaming beneficiary accountability and ultimately to rely on trust rather than control to achieve these goals. This ‘culture’ should then guide how an organisation handles its beneficiaries.

4. LACK OF SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE: Ownership can only be achieved if staff understands the importance and relevance of beneficiary accountability to/for their own work. Building staff skills and knowledge is crucial to increasing understanding and, ultimately, ownership. Skills, knowledge and understanding can be developed through, for example, senior management briefings, training materials, regular courses for relief and development staff, and regular communication between relief and development staff including joint travel and joint participation in ‘lessons learnt’ exercises. The accountability champion could undertake research, develop and disseminate case studies, and ensure strong links between headquarters and field staff.

5. TIME: It is important to recognise that building staff ownership of accountability, and subsequently achieving ‘full integration’, is a process, and will take time. It will be helpful if an organisation understands more generally how change can be achieved, and how to manage change.

Adopted by Paul Gol Accountability Officer Afghanistan DMT from Tearfund publication “Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction: A tool for development organisations” by Sarah La Trobe and Professor Ian Davis (January 2005)

4. Strengthening Beneficiary Accountability in the Afgnan Programme

By Paul Gol

Background

From post Rwanda genocide through to tsunami there has been an increasing demand and interest on the need for the humanitarian sector to be accountable to beneficiaries and to improve on the quality of services delivered. Various accountability initiatives have come up all with the aim to support and improve quality, accountability and learning in the context of emergencies. In 2003 the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP-I) was launched to promote accountability to disaster survivors and to acknowledge those agencies that comply with the HAP Principles and Standards of Humanitarian Accountability.
Lessons from various recent humanitarian emergencies have also highlighted the need to build individual and organisational awareness and capacity to implement humanitarian programmes that include people affected by the disaster as key participants in the design, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes, share intervention information to enhance transparency and to provide the beneficiaries with an opportunity to give feedback to the agencies. In Afghanistan, the need for such an approach to programme management will continue to increase, and humanitarian actors will benefit from adopting this approach.

Tearfund and Accountability

Tearfund UK Disaster Management Team (DMT) is a certified member of HAP International and is therefore committed to implementing Humanitarian Accountability Principles, HAP[1] 2007 Standards and Quality Management across all its emergency programmes. This commitment seeks to;

1. Improve the way Tearfund engages with the local communities in decisions that affect them by striving to enhance participation of affected populations in order to seek informed consent.

2. Share information with beneficiaries in order to promote and improve transparency through information provision.

3. Provide beneficiaries with channels through which concerns can be raised. There is an ethical commitment to listen, monitor and respond to beneficiary concerns.

4. Ensure that members of staff are provided with a thorough understanding of Humanitarian Accountability Principles and standards.

Tearfund in Afghanistan

Tearfund UK established a Disaster Management Team (DMT) for Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan in 2001 in response to drought and conflict. This initial response focused mainly on Water and Sanitation in camps for refugees and Internally Displaced People and work with resettling communities. From 2006 the programme has expanded to Kapisa and Jawzjan provinces.
The current sectors in the Afghanistan DMT are water, sanitation and health promotion in Kandahar, Disaster Risk Reduction and sanitation in Kapisa, and Food Security and livelihoods in northern Jawzjan Province.
In 2008 the Afghanistan DMT recruited an Accountability Officer for its programme to implement Beneficiary Accountability Action Plan in the field by ensuring beneficiaries’ active participation in programme cycle management and provide opportunities to present critical appraisal of Tearfund’s performance during the project period.
Lessons from Tearfund’s interventions in Pakistan, Northern Kenya, Liberia and elsewhere have highlighted the need to build individual and organisational awareness and capacity to implement humanitarian programmes that include people affected by the disaster.
On 17th – 18th December 2008 the Afghanistan DMT organised a two day training for its field staff at the Kabul Programme office on Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management. This Training of Trainers workshop was a culmination of a series of staff awareness training earlier held in Aqcha field office North of Afghanistan and Kapisa to the North East.

The training aimed at building staff capacity and sharpening skills for maximum response on Beneficiary Accountability. This included; Definitions of Accountability; various Accountability Initiatives; tips on programme information sharing in the terrorist environment of Afghanistan; beneficiary involvement at all stages and its benefits and; how to develop a Feedback Handling and Response Mechanism.

Resolution

The training resolved to push forward beneficiary accountability in all the field locations in Afghanistan where Tearfund has a presence, establish Beneficiary Reference Groups as a way of giving the beneficiaries direct benefits of involvement in programme decision making on maters that affect them.
The team also resolved to train others and to further create awareness among the various stakeholders in the field and to work with structures at the community level and government.
It was also resolved that key accountability and project documents would be translated into Dari, Pashto, Turkmani to enable a wide section of the local communities to access and understand.
Examples were shared on various aspects the team felt the programme had done well and where improvement was necessary. These included but not limited to verbal information sharing and wide consultation with stakeholders. However the programme needed to urgently strategise on greater and meaningful involvement of women, set up formal information sharing systems and formal feedback handling and response mechanism. Documentation of consultative processes and feedback would be encouraged and Accountability good practice.

Challenges and Way foward

Insecurity, illiteracy and cultural practices that bar women from full participation in community processes were cited as major impediments to the effective implementation of projects and beneficiary accountability.
At the end of the training, follow up meetings were scheduled for the Kapisa, Kandahar and Jawzjan field location in 2009.

For Further Information Contact;

Paul Gol,
E-mail:dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org

3. Background to Beneficiary Accountability

From post Rwanda genocide in 1994 through to tsunami there has been an increasing demand and interest on the need for the humanitarian sector to be accountable to beneficiaries and to improve on the quality of services delivered. Various accountability initiatives have come up all with the aim to support and improve quality, accountability and learning in the context of emergencies.

Humanitarian agencies exercise significant financial, technical and logistical power in their mission to save lives and reduce suffering. In contrast, the disaster survivors have no formal control and often little influence over emergency relief agencies, making it difficult for people affected by the disaster to hold these aid agencies to account. In 2003 the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP-I) was launched to promote accountability to disaster survivors and to acknowledge those agencies that comply with the HAP Principles and Standards of Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management. By applying these principles and standards an agency makes itself accountable to disaster survivors for the quality of its humanitarian work.

The Red Cross Code 9 states that,” We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources”. There is a clear and growing demand from agencies and their staff for integrated and coherent support to improve quality and accountability in the context of emergencies. Lessons from recent humanitarian emergencies have also highlighted the need to build individual and organisational awareness and capacity to implement humanitarian programmes that include people affected by the disaster as key participants in the design, planning, implementation and evaluation of programmes. All over the world the need for such an approach to humanitarian programme management will continue to increase, and humanitarian actors will benefit from adopting this approach.

Paul Gol,Kabul.

2. Reducing Risk of Disaster in Afghanistan through Community Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives

By Paul Gol

Introduction
Afghanistan is considered as a country prone to a number of natural disasters: earthquakes, flooding, drought, landslides, and avalanches. Earthquakes are more frequent in the north and northeast, and often trigger landslides. Floods are also common in the spring when snow begins to melt and rainfall is heavy. Decades of War and civil conflict, as well as environmental degradation, have all contributed to increasing vulnerability of the Afghan people to natural disasters. Several assessments by Aid agencies have revealed significant shortcomings in the areas of water, sanitation, health, security and natural resource management. Furthermore, the high level of poverty, lack of livelihood and income generating opportunities, chronic health problems, and poor state of the infrastructure all add to the burden of natural disasters on the people of Afghanistan.

Alikheel Village
Alikheel Sayad village is situated in Mahmud Raqy district in Kapisa province. The village has experienced flash floods over the years leading to lose of life, property and destruction of resources and especially land leading to serious environmental degradation. The effects of the floods have left majority of the people vulnerable. The floods continued to reverse all the gains the community would make.

Tearfund’s intervention
Tearfund is an international Non-Governmental Aid Agency operating in nearly 70 countries in the world .It is a member of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP) and has therefore made a commitment to implementing Humanitarian Accountability Principles across all its emergency programmes. Tearfund is committed to work in accordance with the needs of the communities and considers involvement of beneficiaries in programme activities as an integral process towards sustainability, ownership and beneficiary accountability. This consideration demands consistent and precise processes and methods of taking account of beneficiary views at all critical points of service delivery.
Through the Participatory Assessment Disaster Risk (PADR) Tearfund, worked with the local Alikheel community in identifying risk factors, analysed the community vulnerabilities and capacities, and subsequently facilitated the development of an action plan. Tearfund ensured active participation of local communities through the Community Focus Group. Through the PADR process, the local community resolved that the most visible, viable and durable solutions to saving the 170 hectares of land and 50 houses from floods was to plant trees along river Panjsher. The Community Focus Group members through support from Tearfund advocated the Ministry of Agriculture to provide saplings. After a series of meetings and consultations between the community leaders and the Ministry of Agriculture representatives, the Ministry finally provided 350 saplings. From these saplings maintained and managed by the community, a total of 300 trees planted along the river survived. The process was very successful as the trees have thus far managed to keep off the floods and the communities now feel safe.

Achievements and lessons learned

1. The PADR process experience has shown that this process was empowering as people began to understand the reasons for their vulnerabilities and the need for them to take practical steps in turning their situation around.
2. Through the process the communities were able to identify their capacities, opportunities and learning. These capacities became the focus of action planning in the sense that the communities identified what each one was able to do.
3. The community Focus Group was given the responsibility of lobbying the government to provide the saplings. The action plan developed looked at how local capacities could be developed and used in overcoming the vulnerabilities. Some activities were carried out locally as others necessitated external support or involved advocacy.
4. Through this process Tearfund cut cost as the Government provided saplings and communities provided labour.
5. The DRR process subsequently reduced the risk that the Alikheel village community had been facing over the years. This saved further loss of lives and facilitated sustainable livelihoods for the community.
6. When local communities understand their vulnerabilities through a consultative process then they are motivated to seek home-grown solutions.
7. When communities are widely involved in efforts that seek lasting solutions for them it creates a sense of ‘WE’ thus enhancing ownership.
8. It is eventually cost effective to reduce risk compared to intervening after the disaster has occurred in a given location.

For further information contact;
Paul Gol,Tearfund UK,Afghanistan DMT, E-email:dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org

1. Creating Awareness on Beneficiary Accountability among Community Leaders in Afghanistan

By Paul Gol
Afghanistan communities remain one of the most vulnerable on the face of the earth. The communities are constantly faced with a myriad of disasters both natural and man made. The three decades of bloody conflicts has left a trail of abandoned military equipments and land mines. Death, fear,mistrust and extreme vulnerability, especially among the most vulnerable in the communities, women, children, the elderly and persons with disabilities remain a constant challenge. With the influx of foreign troops and a large number of aid agencies it’s becoming increasingly imperative to ensure that basic accountability principles and standards are upheld.

There are two major challenges in implementing beneficiary accountability. First, is the challenge of ensuring that the local leadership understand the concept of accountability in the local context and are able to relate to it effectively. The second challenge is creating a learning environment by inspiring all the stakeholders to reflect critically on progress, to learn from mistakes and to generate ideas for making improvements.

A field trip to Balvchkhel Village of Kapisa Province where Tearfund carried out a comprehensive Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) process is one case study on how these challenges can be overcome and the dire need to create awareness on beneficiary accountability among leaders. The Accountability Officer in the company of the Kapisa Project Manager and Project Accountability Focal Point met the local community leadership the ‘Shura’ also referred to as The Village Community Development Committee. This particular community headed by Mr Ibrahim works very closely with other three committees within the village.

The main responsibilities of the committee are among other functions to;
• Contact other NGOs1 on behalf of the community,
• Community mobilisation for Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD),
• Managing and resolving conflicts within the community,
• Ensure security,
• Management of development programme.

Through this committee Tearfund Kapisa project managed to mobilise communities for the Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS). The CLTS approach uses PRA2 methods to enable local communities analyse their sanitation conditions and collectively internalize the terrible impact of open defecation on public health and on the entire neighborhood environment. It encourages local communities to visit the dirtiest and filthiest areas in the neighbourhood.
Appraising and analysing their practices shocks, disgusts and shames people. This style is provocative and fun,and is hands-off in leaving decisions and action to the community. Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) focuses on igniting a change in sanitation behaviour rather than constructing toilets.

This is not only in line with Tearfund’s quality standard (10) on Environmental Sensitivity but also enables the communities to identify viable methods of disposing of stool after defecation.The accountability officer gave an analogy of two characters Abdul Rahman and Ahmed Wali in an effort to explain accountability in order to enhance easy understanding;

Abdul
Abdul Rahman is a local businessman he has a family of seven children. The family house is small and there is need to either expand it or construct a bigger one. He contracts a mason, travels to Kabul and purchases construction materials, shows the mason the site of the new house and construction begins.
The family asks him what is happening and he responds he is constructing a bigger house for the family and the family realizing it is too late to give inputs agrees with him.

Ahmed
Ahmed Wali runs a retail shop in the local shopping centre. He has a family of six children. He has just made good profit from his business. Over the years and due to the increasing size of the family he contemplates the need for more space. One day after dinner he calls the family together and asks them what they felt about the current accommodation. Each family member is given an opportunity to speak and consensus is reached on the need to put up new dwellings. On the new dwelling the wife says she needs a bigger space for cooking, the first born son says he would prefer to have his own room. The only daughter who is turning seven in three months time also wishes to have her own room. The plan is agreed upon, materials are bought and thehouse is constructed.

The Accountability Officer then posed the question who between these two was Accountable, to whom and why? One elder shouted Ahmed and there was a sense of consensus in the room. Another elder said that Abdul did not seem to care about what the family thought or felt and had taken upon himself to make decisions on their behalf. Another member commended Ahmed for spending time with the family to explain the situation and to listen to what the family members wanted. With these comments it was evidently clear that Accountability, referred to in Afghanistan as ‘hesabdihi’ referring to accounts was now understood in terms of communityconsultations, involvement and information sharing and feedback handling. Whereas Abdul meant well for his family and wants the best for them his approach does not proved his beneficiaries, the family, with any platform to give views.

Resolution
The leaders resolve to adapt the ‘Ahmed approach’ in their work as a co-ordinating and supervisory organ of development in the villages. The chairman Mr Ibrahim asserted that it was his responsibility now to share with the other Shura councils both men and women on the issues discussed at the meeting and would talk about Abdul and Ahmed. He said the analogy was good since it consisted of local names that many people would identify with and would therefore understand accountability in a very simple way. The elders unanimously said that only ‘Ahmed NGOs’ were welcome to work among them.

For more information contact:
Paul Gol, Accountability Officer,
Tearfund UK, Afghanistan DMT,
E-mail: dmt-afghan-ao@tearfund.org