The review will focus in particular inclusion (with a focus on gender) and accountability. Have they been incorporated in the response? Did they shape it?
Inclusion/gender and accountability are understood as essential, crosscutting components of a quality response. And they are linked. They both require that the response strengthen the power and dignity of people at risk of being marginalized and sidelined. This is achieved by involving them, as much as possible, in decision making.
A “good enough” response. But aiming high!
Both concepts are aspirational: humanitarian organization always aim at high degrees of inclusion and accountability. But practical consideration limits the extent to which they can be achieved. The different dimensions of inclusion and accountability – shown below – help to gauge: are achievements good enough, in the circumstances? Do organization show a commitment to improve them? We well look at different dimensions of inclusion and accountability to explore this. All these dimensions have already been tested in previous work in Nepal
|Dimensions of inclusion (focus on gender)
|Dimensions of accountability
Our main reference: the Core Humanitarian Standards
Our exploration of inclusion and accountability will also be linked to the Core Humanitarian Standard. They will be the primary reference for this review, as they can encompass other existing standards in use (Sphere, HAP, People in Aid, of course, but also the OECD/DEC standards and other humanitarian code of conduct.
Linking the core humanitarian standards to our understanding of inclusion, and accountability, will also help to deepen it. We will do this as part of our analysis process.
For example, we will explore questions such as:
- is the work done on inclusion / accountability lead to assistance that is relevant for diverse people?
- What is the impact of accountability / inclusion on the timeliness of the response?
- Is it helping to avoid negative effects, reduce risk, seize opportunities to build on local capacities? (or can it cause harm?)
- Is it built on and does it strengthen participation and communication?
- Is it supported by effective feedback mechanisms? (and/or does it strengthen them?)
- Is it supported by coordinated work, and/or does it foster collaboration amongst different actors?
- Is is built on previous learning, and/or efficiently captured / shared?
- What implications did it have for organizational staffing?
- Are organizational systems and resources supportive of accountability and inclusion? And do accountability and response help effective management of resources?