Trip Report: Clare Smith, Humanitarian Accountability Advisor, CARE UK,

csmith@careinternational.org
+44 (0)207 934 9361

Country visited: CARE Myanmar, responding to Cyclone Nargis

Overall purpose: To support Country Office in putting accountability into practice in their cyclone
response

Trip Objectives: The overall aim was to have functioning accountability systems in place by the
end of the deployment (that were ‘good enough’ and that could be improved
over time). The approach taken was to strengthen both the systems, and
importantly the capacity of staff.

Period: 03/07/2008 – 23/07/2008 (2 ½ weeks)

Key contact: U Khin Maung Lwin, Technical and Q&A Coordinator, kmlwin@care.org.mm

The trip report is organised under the following headings

Contents
1. Executive summary
2. Introduction (objectives, process, results)
3. Developing a humanitarian accountability framework for CARE Myanmar
4. Findings
5. Recommendations

Boxes
Box 1 – Objectives of the accountability review conducted with Q&A staff (training event)
Box 2 – Key definitions used by CARE Myanmar
Box 3 – Rationale for developing an accountability framework, or Q&A strategy
Box 4 – How targeting is currently happening

Annexes
- Attachment a -
Annex 1 - TOR for the deployment
Annex 2 – Work schedule
Annex 3 – Diagramme showing components of accountability for CARE Myanmar
Annex 4 – Diagrammes showing components of the feedback and complaints mechanism
Annex 5 - Two stories from the field
Annex 6 - Tools developed for field visit
Annex 7 – Matrix findings and recommendations/lessons learned generated by Q&A staff
Annex 8 - Action plan generated by Q&A staff

- Attachment B -
Annex 9 – Q&A strategy document (draft)
Annex 10 - Procedure for complaints handling (draft)
Annex 11 – Example of complaints recording forms
Annex 12 - Roles and responsibilities chart (for development)

- Attachment C -
Annex 13 – Information tool (Analysing information: who needs what information, when and how)
Annex 14 – Example of tool for developing core competencies
Annex 15 – Example of a capacity building tool (expected behavioural outcomes)
Annex 16 – Example of a learning needs assessment tool
Annex 17 – Summary of key inter-agency standards, codes and guidelines

- Attachment D -
1
Annex 18 – Aid memoire from review workshop for participants
Annex 19 – Session plans developed by staff
Annex 20 – Monitoring visit documents developed by staff

1. Executive Summary

This trip report documents activities, outputs and reflections from a visit by CARE UK’s Advisor on
Humanitarian Accountability that aimed to support CARE Myanmar in strengthening accountability
within their Cyclone Nargis response. The visit took place in July, approximately 2 months into the
response and consisted of time with staff in Yangon head office and Pyapon field office and two days
of field visit in Dedaye township in the Ayerwaddy district, one of the 6 townships where CARE is
currently operational.

The overall aim of the mission was to have functioning accountability systems in place by the end of
the deployment (that were ‘good enough’ and that could be improved over time). The terms of
reference lays out key aims and expected outcomes and outputs (Annex 1). In summary, the trip
had two key objectives:

1. Build the capacity of key staff, in terms of their understanding of accountability and how it can
be practiced; and

2. Strengthen accountability systems that enable accountability to be practiced in a more

systematic manner, and that can also be demonstrated and improved over time.

Prior to the visit, CARE Myanmar appointed a Quality and Accountability Coordinator to be based in
Yangon head office (previously CARE’s DME Coordinator). This staff member worked closely with the
CARE UK advisor throughout the 3 weeks. An additional 8 staff from the field based programme
teams were also designated quality and accountability roles (Q&A), one programme officer for each
of the 6 townships, and two senior programme officers. Providing immediate capacity building
support for this core group of staff was identified as a priority.

The approach taken was to build the skills and confidence of these staff in a practical way (learning
by doing) by working with the staff towards some practical goals. An “accountability review” was
conducted of CARE’s response in one field location. It aimed to provide a snap shot, in terms of
identifying good practices and areas for improvement (a baseline), and identifying next steps (action
planning for improvements). Ultimately it was a training exercise. The review also included a
training of trainers element in order to give the newly appointed staff an opportunity to practice
communicating concepts and practices of accountability to others. This consisted of a one day
workshop that the Q&A staff would conduct for other staff.

In discussing the strengthening of accountability systems, five inter-linked key components were
identified for CARE to work on, and to improve over time (good enough approach)
1. Understanding vulnerability
2. Providing information and promoting transparency
3. Promoting participation
4. Using Sphere
5. Implementing a feedback and complaints system

These 5 components are underpinned by

1. HR management and staff capacity building
2. Working in partnership
3. Allocating adequate resources
4. Emergency preparedness
5. Leadership

The Country Office is planning to conduct an After Action Review (lessons learned workshop) and an
external evaluation that will explicitly look at their accountability systems as part of an effective,
quality response and any evidence of the difference it may, or may not have made.
2
Good practice (an enabling environment)
Before the cyclone hit, CARE Myanmar had already identified accountability as an organisational
priority. This organisational commitment was crucial in creating the enabling environment to deal
with humanitarian accountability seriously.

The appointment of a Quality and Accountability advisor was fundamental to creating the space
needed to take steps to put accountability into practice. The coordinator was appointed in the first
month of the response. In view of the significant role that this position occupies, it is crucial to have
such a person in place from day one.

The inter-agency NGO support that is being provided by the NGO liaison officer (through the
Accountability and Learning Working Group – ALWG) and by the two quality and accountability
initiatives (HAP and Sphere) is important and welcome.

Developing a draft Q&A strategy (or accountability framework) was a useful exercise. It helped to
build a shared understanding of CARE’s commitment to accountability, and to begin to explore what
this then looks like in practice within the constraints and opportunities of the Myanmar context. The
framework was used to start the process of building up simple systems, and developing simple tools
that can be improved over time.

Summary of key recommendations for the Country Office (see section 5 for full description)
Key recommendations for immediate action

1. The next step forward is to finalise and implement an action plan for improvements – to
further strengthen understanding, systems and tools.

2. Awareness raising and capacity building is a priority area to focus on. Link up with the
Sphere and HAP focal point people who have offered to support agencies in developing generic
induction and capacity building materials that can then be adapted to the needs of different
agencies.

3. Strengthen CARE’s information provision. Produce materials to support CARE staff in

providing key information to communities in a clear and consistent manner. Provide guidance
and support to Community Facilitators and other field based staff in working with communities to
share information. One concrete example of information to be communicated to communities
(and not just committees) by staff is that no charges relate to the delivery of items should be
expected and that CARE provides committees with fuel for transport. This should be closely
followed up.

4. Strengthen basic monitoring of programmes that incorporates beneficiary feedback. Develop

a plan for continuing the focus group discussions with disaster affected communities and
implement (and improve on) the accountability monitoring tool. In addition develop simple to use
feedback monitoring tools for different areas of CARE’s work using Sphere. Integrate these tools
into overall M&E planning at the programme level. Support is required for data management.

5. Establish internal systems (what happens to the feedback that is collected through
monitoring). This includes simple reporting mechanisms that enable feedback to reach decision
makers at the appropriate levels. Set up Q&A committees at head office and field office level to
ensure that responsibility for responding to feedback is shared and systematically carried out.
Identify appropriate members and convene a first meeting to develop a simple TOR.

6. At the same time, explore further more formal complaint mechanisms (noting that the
word complaint does not need to be used). Use AWLG platform to share ideas for piloting formal
complaint mechanism, and ask the HAP focal point for feedback on piloting plans. It is
recommended that:
 CARE pilots a complaints mechanism with a very clearly defined scope around CARE’s
response in an area where CARE has established good relationships
3
  CARE develops an awareness raising plan, and capacity building tools for field based staff
 CARE develops a communications strategy to ensure that the rationale and results are
being communicated in a transparent fashion to a wide range of stakeholders, including
local authorities, in order to manage the risk that suspicion undermines the system.

7. Investigate further how participation can be further promoted in the short term. Link with
the ALWG, and the Social Recovery working group (early recovery cluster) which will be looking
to support agencies in approaches to social recovery and community organisation in the relief
and rehabilitation efforts.

8. Develop and provide guidance relating to vulnerability to field based CARE staff, for
example how to review with communities the beneficiary list. Involve a wide range of staff in
developing this guidance, and in keeping it responsive to change’s in people’s vulnerabilities over
time. Further information related to the issue of unregistered families should be prioritised by
the Q&A team.

9. Review targeting approaches and determine a level of consistency across the townships, albeit
taking into account the different contexts.

10. Use a Community Profiling Tool to help profile the communities with which we work: to help
us to disaggregate the population, and ensure we are including all groups. Share simple ways to
do this analysis with other agencies, and build on our experiences of using the Good Enough
Guide to “profile the community”.

11. Identify ways the Q&A Coordinator can be provided with distant support from CARE Q&A
Coordinator (Jock Baker) and CIUK advisor e.g. through email and monthly call.

12. Continue to support the Q&A Coordinator in playing an active role in the inter-agency team of
focal points (being convened over next two months) and explore a role for the Q&A Coordinator
in encouraging and supporting the sustainability of this focal point team.

Recommendations for leadership

1. A challenge that can arise in creating a team of staff with dedicated quality and accountability
roles, is that accountability is mistakenly not seen as part of the core work of programme
teams, but as something that is parallel and that is to be carried out by the dedicated
accountability staff only. It is important therefore to stress that accountability is part of
everybody’s role. It is very positive that the core Q&A staff are embedded in programme
teams, and are not line managed by the Coordinator in Yangon, as this sends the right
message. This needs to be reinforced however by support and clear messaging from the
leadership. Clear roles and responsibilities need to demonstrate that overall responsibility rests
with senior and project management, supported by leadership, and technical support from the
Q&A Coordinator.

2. Critical is the need for a clear communication strategy that relates to the accountability
commitments and work of CARE, and the rationale behind them. This will be especially
important in promoting and negotiating the accountability work of CARE with other
stakeholders, and in particular the government.

3. There is little culture of making complaint in Myanmar, and little confidence in the idea that
submitting feedback (whether positive or negative) can be perceived as a positive or welcomed
action, or something that can bring benefit. Most communities told how if they do not get the
assistance they expected or require they will just “let it be”. This is also reflected amongst
staff, and a culture of feedback will need to be created over time. Identify opportunities where
staff can practice giving feedback, and can be exposed to the benefits this can bring.
Creating space for field staff to feed back to head office staff would be one way of modelling
how feedback can take place, and demonstrating what happens to the feedback that has been
provided (two way feedback).

4
4. Senior management needs to be ready to take (managed) risks associated with the
practicalities and implications of setting up a complaints system (as part of CARE’s feedback
and complaints). Although complaints mechanism should never be implemented in isolation,
the reality of humanitarian situations also means that mistakes can be made, the situation can
change rapidly on the ground and that in some instances it may be necessary to strike a
balance in working with community organisations that may not necessarily be truly
representative of the poor or marginalised.

5. The issue of vulnerability must be at the centre of CARE’s review of their recovery strategy,
including exploring CARE’s role in permanent shelter. Advocating for the inclusion of people
excluded from assistance, or for the inclusion of issues of vulnerability will be challenging and
sensitive. Government regulation complicates the response and can be difficult and sensitive
to influence.

6. The CO has made great effort to locate external technical assistance and to ensure that this
technical assistance is used to give staff the quality support they are entitled to. Evaluate
the timing, length and approach of support provided.

Recommendations for the longer term

1. Begin to explore the implications that CARE’s accountability commitments may have for our
partnerships, as well as how CARE can support partners in developing their own capacities.
Share experiences and lessons with the Accountability and Learning Working Group, especially
those NGOs that are currently working with partners.

2. Collect feedback on CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework based on the

experience of putting it into practice.

3. Capture learning in a case study to be facilitated by the Q&A Coordinator, supported by the
Advisor.

5
2. Introduction
This trip report documents activities, outputs and reflections from a visit by CARE UK’s Advisor on
Humanitarian Accountability that aimed to support CARE Myanmar in strengthening accountability
within their Cyclone Nargis response. The visit took place in July, approximately 2 months into the
response and consisted of time with staff in Yangon head office and Pyapon field office and two days
of field visit in Dedaye township in the Ayerwaddy district, one of the 6 townships where CARE is
currently operational.

3.1 Trip objectives

The overall aim was to have functioning accountability systems in place by the end of the
deployment (that were ‘good enough’ and that could be improved over time). The terms of
reference lays out key aims and expected outcomes and outputs (Annex 1). In summary, the trip
had two key objectives:
3. Build the capacity of key staff, in terms of their understanding of accountability and how it can
be practiced; and
4. Strengthen accountability systems that enable accountability to be practiced in a more
systematic manner, and that can also be demonstrated and improved over time.

3.2 What we did (process)

Prior to the visit, CARE Myanmar appointed a Quality and Accountability Coordinator to be based in
Yangon head office (previously CARE’s DME Coordinator). This staff member worked closely with the
advisor throughout the 3 weeks.

An additional 8 staff from the field based programme teams were also designated quality and
accountability roles (Q&A), one programme officer for each of the 6 townships, and two senior
programme officers. Of these staff, two were new to CARE, and one new to NGO work. Most were
new to emergencies, though some had been involved in the current response from the first days.
Four of the staff had experience of PRA techniques such as facilitating focus group discussions. The
team currently lacks gender balance being made up of seven men and two women. Providing
immediate capacity building support for this core group of staff was identified as a priority.

The approach taken was to build the skills and confidence of these staff in a practical way (learning
by doing) by working with the staff towards some practical goals. We therefore conducted an
“accountability review” of our response – in one field location. It aimed to provide a snap shot, in
terms of identifying good practices and areas for improvement (a baseline), and identifying next
steps (action planning for improvements). Ultimately however, it was a training exercise. We
decided that the review should also include a training of trainers element in order to give the newly
appointed staff an opportunity to practice communicating concepts and practices of accountability to
others. This consisted of a one day workshop that the Q&A staff would conduct for other staff.

Key activities
Preparation: CIUK advisor and Q&A coordinator developed a first draft Q&A strategy for CARE
Myanmar. This exercise helped build a shared understanding helpful in carrying out joint planning
for the staff training. Several meetings were conducted in Yangon with senior staff, and with the HAP
and Sphere inter-agency quality and accountability focal points.

Field level accountability review: This was a 7 day process with the core Q&A staff that consisted of
a 2 day planning workshop, 2 day field visit, 2 day analysis workshop and 1 day training workshop.
During these 7 days, the core Q&A staff reviewed concepts, developed 3 tools, tested the tools in 4
communities, analysed their findings, and generated lessons learned and recommendations. They
also carried out some initial action planning, and designed and facilitated a one day training for 15
other CARE staff. See Box 1 for objectives.

Debriefing: The advisor and Q&A coordinator reviewed the Q&A strategy based on the experience
and feedback from staff and communities, and prepared for a debriefing with senior staff and visiting
senior leadership. The purpose of the debriefing was to solicit the feedback, reactions and input of

6
 senior staff on the findings from the field visit and conversations with staff, and the actions identified
through the process described above.

See Annex 2 for the trip work schedule.

Box 1: Objectives of the accountability review conducted with Q&A staff (training event)

Overall objectives:
 Build the capacity of the Q&A staff
 Carry out a Good Enough baseline and needs assessment (with staff and communities)
 Develop an action plan to strengthen CARE’s accountability systems
 Assess the KSA of staff, in order to identify additional support needs
1. Planning workshop objectives (2 days)
 Review concepts of accountability (quality, and impact assessment)
 Identify good practice and areas for improvement (thinking about the Myanmar context)
 Develop tools and plan for field visits*
*By planning for field visits we mean: what information do we want to collect, why, from whom, and
how
2. Field visit objectives (2 days)
 Apply and test some good enough tools
 Carry out assessment / monitoring with the communities
 Build understanding of field situation and “profile” of communities
 Carry out debriefings at the end of each day
3. Analysis workshop objectives (2 days)
 Document community data
 Analyse our findings from community assessments, and generate recommendations and lessons
learned (options)
 Review our experiences, and provide feedback
 Agree action plan (for sharing and endorsement by project and senior management)
 Prepare for training workshop
4. Awareness raising workshop objectives (to be facilitated by Q&A staff)
 Provide an introduction to staff on CARE’s accountability commitments and systems
 Staff practice using tools

What we achieved (results)

Concepts that were reviewed by staff are shown Annex 3 (diagramme showing components of
accountability for CARE Myanmar) which is based on CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability
Framework. For each component the following discussion took place:
o Why is it important for CARE Myanmar?
o What are we already doing that is good practice and that we can build upon?
o What are the gaps? Where do we need to focus our efforts?
o What tools do we need?
o What questions do we want to ask community members during the field visits in order
to assess how we are doing?

The staff developed 3 tools for the field visit, and practiced using all 3 tools in the communities.
The tools developed are: an accountability monitoring tool to review levels of beneficiary
accountability; a complaints mechanism PRA tool to explore with communities how they currently
provide feedback to CARE and their views on how this can be improved; and a community profile
tool to build an understanding of the communities with which we work – see Annex 6.

We visited 4 villages in Dedaye township over two days of field visits. The villages selected had
different characteristics: a small village of 44 households; a village where CARE distributions take
place (end distribution point); and a larger village of approximately 300 households. Staff
conducted 16 focus group discussions with committee members, women and men separately, and in
mixed groups. Not in all cases did we speak to women and men separately.

7
A one day workshop for staff took place for 15 CARE staff. The Q&A staff were split into 4 teams,
and each team developed and delivered a one and half hour session, and practiced using key tools
for work shop and session planning. The four session plans developed by the staff are: an
introduction to accountability; information sharing; feedback and complaints; how to profile the
community.

A snap shop of CARE’s accountability was achieved, including identifying examples of good practice,
and action planning based on findings took place. This however was a training exercise, and there
were limitations in terms of conducting an ‘accountability review’ that assesses current levels of
accountability in CARE Myanmar’s relief programmes e.g.
 Starting from existing knowledge and experience of core team
 We visited only 4 villages, and met with 3 or 4 focus groups in each village
 No interaction with partners took place
 Incomplete documentation review
 Only informal conversations with staff, however this helped gain a better understanding of how
CARE interacts with communities, and of systems within CARE
 No in-depth look at a particular intervention (for example, using Sphere)
 Review took place at field level, and did not focus on head office, or on programme support
systems

Despite limitations, the review exercise was useful and showed in a short period of time how
feedback can help us reflect on our accountability and impact, and make changes to our work. The
emergency team was working with dedication and skill, and the field visits provided evidence of
positive change in people’s lives through CARE’s interventions.

8
The key definitions used during the trip

Box 2: What is accountability? Definitions from CARE’s Emergency Toolkit (Chapter 6)

Programme quality during an emergency response means effectively addressing immediate needs
in a timely way and in a way that helps disaster-affected communities take control of their lives and
promotes equity and justice, and secures livelihoods over the longer term.

Accountability is about how an organisation fulfills its responsibilities in meeting the needs of
different groups in its decision making and activities:
 Accountability means making sure that the women, men, and children affected by an emergency
are involved in planning, implementing, and judging our response to their emergency. This helps
ensure that a project will have the impact they want (The good enough guide).
 Accountability is the means by which power is used responsibly (Humanitarian Accountability
Partnership International—HAP).

Quality & Accountability (Q&A) is a term adopted to emphasise CARE’s understanding that
accountability is an integral component of programme quality.

Impact measurement means understanding the changes taking place as a result of an emergency
project. We need to ask ‘what difference are we really making to the lives and livelihoods of the
disaster-affected people?’ At each phase, not just at the end, we must ask the women, men, and
children caught up in the emergency their view of the project and its impact. Their views are more
important than anyone else’s (The good enough guide).

Good enough does not mean second best: it means acknowledging that, in an emergency
response, adopting a quick and simple approach to impact measurement and accountability may be
the only practical possibility. When the situation changes, you should aim to review your chosen
solution and amend your approach accordingly (Good Enough Guide)

9
3. Developing a humanitarian accountability framework for CARE Myanmar

In discussing the strengthening of accountability systems, five inter-linked key components were
identified for CARE to work on, and to improve over time (good enough approach)

1. Understanding vulnerability helps ensure that the most vulnerable are not
excluded through our response, and that we don’t create new risk.

2. Providing information and promoting transparency builds relationships of trust and

enables people to better participate in decision making and feedback opportunities.

3. In early stages of emergency situations, we often do not have the luxury of ensuring
that community institutions can adequately represent the interest of vulnerable
groups, hence the need to focus specifically on promoting participation of the most
marginalised is a part of the accountability framework.

4. Using Sphere helps guide us in defining what responses should be in order to achieve
change in people’s lives, by being explicit about process and outcomes.

5. Implementing a feedback and complaints system that enables CARE to be more

responsive to communities. As a backstop, a complaints system provides a
confidential mechanism for communicating to CARE.

These 5 components are underpinned by

1. HR management and staff capacity building ensures that core competencies
required are clearly identified for individuals and teams, and that all staff have a clear
understanding of the range of responsibilities in implementing accountability within
their programme or programme support role; as well as the skills and management
support required to carry them out

2. Working in partnership requires us to explore with partners the implications that

CARE’s accountability commitments may have for our partnerships, as well as how
CARE can support partners in developing their own capacities

3. Allocating adequate resources ensures that budgets enable the delivery of

accountability, whether this is sufficient human resources, communications resources,
M&E resources. Some aspects of accountability require little extra resources or time,
instead it is about how do we do differently what we do already. Other types of
activity have a much greater implication on the work load of project staff (such as the
flexibility to be responsive to community feedback or complaint). This needs to be
taken into account in project planning and resourcing.

4. Emergency preparedness is an opportunity to plan for accountability from day one

of future disaster response

5. Ultimately the success of the strategy is underpinned by the commitment and support
of leadership

The hypothesis we want to test: Accountability makes a difference, it enables us to reach vulnerable
people we may not have reached, resolve problems we may not otherwise have been aware of,
improve our impact, and contribute to greater dignity of the affected population.

Developing a draft Q&A strategy was a useful exercise (where are we now? Where to we want to get
to? How are we going to get there?). It helped staff to build a shared understanding of CARE’s
commitment to accountability, and to begin to explore what this then looks like in practice within the
constraints and opportunities of the Myanmar context. The framework was used to start the process
of building up simple systems, and developing simple tools that can be improved over time.
10
The components of accountability used to develop the Q&A strategy for CARE Myanmar are based on
the 8 accountability benchmarks of CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework (CARE
Emergency Toolkit, Chapter 6). The CARE benchmarks incorporate the essential aspects of inter-
agency Q&A principles and standards that CARE is committed to, and can help us bring CARE’s
principles and the different inter-agency standards together (for example HAP, Sphere, Good Enough
Guide).

In developing the components for CARE Myanmar, we first developed the diagramme in Annex 3
through discussing the CARE Humanitarian Accountability Framework and through brainstorming.
Later staff involved in the review developed ideas around the purpose of these components through
discussions, exercises, sharing experiences and brainstorming (e.g. why is accountability important
to CARE Myanmar?). The review findings helped identify areas for improvement and informed action
planning.

CARE HAF also asks that we demonstrate our compliance with the benchmarks. The approach being
taken is about positive one of learning and continuous improvement
 Asking and answering questions about accountability will be a continuous process
 Measuring and demonstrating compliance with CARE’s quality and accountability benchmarks,
is about starting with a base line and then identifying and implementing ways to move
forward (good enough approach)

The draft strategy is found in Annex 9, and now needs to be consolidated and integrated into the
review of CARE’s recovery strategy.

The feedback and complaints mechanism diagrammes in Annex 4 were developed with staff to help
communicate and discuss the critical aspects of effective feedback and complaints, albeit that it is a
simple and not elaborate feedback and complaints mechanism that we are after. We need to set up
simple systems that enable the feedback loop to be completed, and identify and resolve any
blockages.

Accountability must be seen as part of the core work of project teams, and not as something that is
parallel to be carried out by dedicated accountability staff only. Whether it is information provision
or seeing a complaint through to its conclusion, these types of activities are integral to achieving
CARE’s humanitarian mission, and project staff have a critical role to play. It is important therefore
to stress that accountability is part of everybody’s role. Clear roles and responsibilities need to
demonstrate that overall responsibility rests with senior and project management, supported by
leadership, and technical support from the Q&A Coordinator. Project planning and resourcing needs
to take into account these roles and responsibilities, , and organisational systems (such as human
resources) need to support it, for example, for staff inductions and job descriptions.

Box 3: Rationale for developing an accountability framework, or Q&A strategy

This framework represents an effort to put into practice and strengthen our accountability
towards the affected population during the emergency (as important in the first phase of the
emergency as in the transition to rehabilitation). It aims to build up knowledge over time of
strategies, activities and tools that enable a simple and practice approach. An accountability
framework will help us to
 Communicate our commitment to accountability and explain to others, internally and
externally, what it looks like in practice. Different people and actors have different
understandings of what accountability means. A framework will help us to communicate what
accountability means for CARE Myanmar. It will also help us to build the capacity of our staff
to understand the important aspects of accountability, and will provide a base on which we
can build resources for training, inductions and on the job support.
 Give more form to what we are already doing A framework will help us to fill in the gaps and
find simple mechanisms and processes to put accountability into practice in a more
systematic way.

11
  Invest critical resources Many aspects of accountability do not require additional resources,
but a change in the way we do things. Other aspects will require an investment. This
framework will help us to identify different aspects of accountability and the critical resources
(human, financial, capacities) that we need to invest to translate them into practice
 Be clear about people’s roles and responsibilities Accountability must be seen as part of the
core work of project teams, and not as something that is parallel to be carried out by
dedicated accountability staff only. Whether it is information provision or seeing a complaint
through to its conclusion, these types of activities are integral to achieving CARE’s
humanitarian mission, and project staff have a critical role to play. It is important therefore
to stress that accountability is part of everybody’s role.
 Manage risk in a coherent way Staff need to build up a shared understanding of both the
potential benefits of accountability and the associated risks, and how to monitor, manage and
mitigate against them. The risks can relate to lack of accountability (not doing it) as well as
to how it is put into practice (as we need to be aware that new risk, especially for vulnerable
groups, as well as for CARE, can be introduced).
 Monitor and demonstrate how we are doing Through monitoring and evaluating our response
against this framework we can learn from our experiences and from the voices of key actor.
This will help us improve both our emergency work, and our understanding of how to put
accountability into practice in increasingly better ways in the areas in which we work in
Myanmar. Moreover, it will help us measure and demonstrate our impact and successes, and
influence others.
 Working with others Recognising what we cannot succeed in being accountable to affected
populations alone, is underlined by the principle of working in partnership and in coordination
with others, and to influence the actions of others (bring others along with us).
 Apply learning across other programmes The framework and its implementation represent a
process of incorporating accountability in the emergency response. It will be, without a
doubt, a source of learning that we hope will serve for other interventions in our development
programmes, and across all that we do.

4. Key findings (baseline – where are we starting from?)

Commitment by CARE Myanmar

 Nargis emergency response has been seen as an important moment for making accountability
to disaster affected people a reality, both to help CARE respond in the best manner possible,
and also as an important opportunity for learning. Senior staff are keen to get on and make it
happen. CARE demonstrated its commitment by creating a Quality and Accountability position
and this position was filled by CARE’s DM&E Coordinator. CARE created 8 additional posts in
July, some handing over previous functions and beginning in earnest 1st August.
 CARE is using the CARE Humanitarian Accountability Framework (this refers to all CARE’s
internal and external accountability commitments (principles, standards, codes, guidelines),
and CARE’s HAF is included in orientations (but how well staff are aware of the framework not
clear).
 CARE is active in the Accountability Learning Working Group. The forum provides an excellent
support and learning mechanism for CARE Myanmar. CARE has translated the good enough
guide (though didn’t share this information with others early enough so there was some
duplication).

Humanitarian quality management systems1 enable implementation of CARE’s HAF

 Most elements of a quality management system are in place (good financial systems,
procurement and logistics, human resources) .

1
For a HAP certification process for example, a complete baseline analysis is required against HAP benchmarks
for both HQ and the field. This includes a full document review of a Country Office’s quality management
systems, and the practice of those systems (including HR management, financial management, supply chain
management, information management etc)

12
  Internal communication within CARE is challenging, not least because of poor telecoms (e.g. no
email), and long distances to some field offices. Efforts to improve internal communication are
currently being implemented (including improved reporting, increased visits between HQ and
field).
 Poor information management systems in the first two months (information being lost with
turnover of staff, poor documentation, incomplete data collation) has had an effect on decision
making (for example in developing plans for transition). An information management
consultant has been taken on for one month to help improve information systems, including
linking up logistics management and distribution management.
 Financial management of funds has caused challenges, linked to changes in use of funds, and
incomplete tracking of funds through to the distribution end point.
 Human resources has recently reviewed issues of staff welfare, such as R&R and psychosocial
support needs. A clear organigramme exists, and staff have job descriptions. Orientation of
staff is however not yet systematic.
 Emergency and development teams are currently separate.
 Communications support has been limited.

Relationship with partners

 CARE is working with two new partners for the response, a more formalised development NGO
and an education related CSO that mobilised for emergency response. Both are implementing
partners receiving NFI from CARE for distribution.
 CARE has a limited relationship with these partners, because of access and capacity issues, (no
regular meetings, limited monitoring, limited capacity assessment or building). It is unclear
what expectations CARE has for each partner in the future.

Knowledge Skills and Attitudes (KSA) of staff

 The team had a wide understanding of accountability (i.e. broader than financial accountability,
auditing, donor reporting, output monitoring).
 Orientation on the principles and standards of CARE (principles, humanitarian mandate
statement, CARE’s HAF, characteristics of vulnerability, gender in emergencies) has been
implemented with the “second wave” of new staff

Impact (changes in people’s lives)

 Many beneficiaries involved in discussions were satisfied with the items they received and
found them essential. Family kits are useful and appreciated although some items had never
been used before (e.g. toothbrush). Earthen jars are useful for rainwater collection and are
long lasting. Bamboo is appreciated, and many families are currently using the bamboo and
plastic to reinforce or reconstruct their homes.
 Maybe not all families need household kits at this stage and there is evidence that better-off
families have purchased items by this point. Families interviewed indicated kits will be
necessary for casual labourers and for families currently living together in one household.
 Some assistance from CARE did not go to the most vulnerable households, as in the case of
bamboo being distributed to better off families with large houses, which was inappropriate to
their needs and generated some dissatisfaction, notwithstanding that this is not CARE’s target
group.
 Some farmers are reporting lower than usual germination rates due to saline contamination
and other factors. In one village there was duplication with FAO who had also provided seed
that the community planned to consume as they considered it of lesser quality).
 Households and communities have shown resilience, working to repair or rebuild homes and
community infrastructure (e.g. religious buildings), though in many cases repairs are very poor
quality, or temporary in nature.
 Communities spoke of their own coping mechanisms (“first we saved as much rice as we could,
then some private donations arrived. Then food from CARE which came at the right time”.)

13
  Field staff also spoke of the strong social support mechanisms that are part of community way
of life in the region and recognised the primary role being played by the community in
responding to their own emergency2.
 There were requests for more distributions (staff referred to issue of dependency). Some
farmers are expecting to receive assistance for a long time (food and next distribution of seed).
Some people requested money, so they can build back their lives, or so that they could source
their own seed for best germination rates.
 Communities requested support for fishermen and labourers who have not yet received any
support to restore their livelihoods. Fishing families said they would catch small fish to survive
if they did not receive more food.
 Committees that are charging for transport of relief items is a problem for some community
members.

Information provision
How information is shared
 There are some good practice examples of CARE displaying important entitlement information:
who the beneficiaries are, what every beneficiary will receive, the donor, and in the case of
food for number of days of the ration. In Yangon villages, distribution occurs in each village
location, and information is clearly displayed. In the Delta, committees collect the items from
CARE distribution points (where information is clearly displayed) for transporting to their village
for distribution (where CARE relies on the committee to share this information).
 A primary means of sharing information is through meetings. In Yangon district, meetings
happen with the wider community in undertaking a wealth and vulnerability ranking exercise.
As a result, the community are made aware of the criteria being used for the ranking exercise.
In the Delta region, the main contact is with the committee, through assessment, distribution
and monitoring.

Information that people have, or don’t have

 From the focus group discussions in Ayerwaddy division, CARE is recognised by all villages, and
is well received. Informants can name activities in their village, what type of items, and the
number of items they have personally received. Farmers were aware of the seed distribution
criteria, based on their amount of land.
 Not all community members however were fully aware of the distribution process, their
entitlements, or how beneficiaries were selected before the distribution occurred. People said
that only when the village leaders call they go and receive whatever the leaders have brought.
They were not necessarily aware of criteria for selecting beneficiaries, or objectives of the
distribution.
 Community members interviewed did not know the names of CARE staff, or their roles exactly,
but did recognise CARE staff, and did know the logo of CARE. CARE staff are well branded (t-
shirts, hats, backpacks) and use the logo to tell people that they are from CARE. Some relief
items are branded with donor logo (e.g. DFID water pots).
 Some people do not know about the food committee (there is confusion with Village Peace and
Development Committee, or they do not know who the members are). Some people do not
understand whether they are a beneficiary (unregistered women who ‘hoped’ she would receive
bamboo the following day but didn’t know).

Information that people want

 From the focus group discussions in Ayeyarwady division, communities want to have more
information on future planning of CARE, who to ask for more information, who are beneficiaries
and what they receive, why some items are missing, the time range between distributions.

Understanding vulnerability

2
“We recognise that it is firstly through their own efforts that the basic needs of people affected by calamity or
armed conflict are met, and we acknowledge the primary role and responsibility of the state to provide
assistance when people’s capacity to cope has been exceeded” (Sphere Humanitarian Charter, Roles and
Responsibilities, page 18)

14
  Information on vulnerability is not being collected systematically by CARE or the community.
 The community themselves do not have much detailed information about their own community,
and who is vulnerable and why, that can be used for assessment, planning and decision
making.
 One reason for this is that the community don’t normally identify who is vulnerable and they
prefer to distribute assistance equally (so that both rich and poor receive items). In one village,
beneficiary selection for shelter (bamboo) is based on family registration, each registered
family receiving 20 bamboo, and is not based on vulnerability nor on damage to property.
Village committees are also now focused on developing their village, and less focused on the
needs of the most vulnerable.
 The review team concluded that communities are very capable of identifying the most
vulnerable and why. Committee members are often not clear on the purpose of assistance.
Information on vulnerable not captured by community themselves, but can be encouraged to
do so.
 In both the village visits, and through conversations with staff, there are incidences of
unregistered families been excluded, although in some cases they have now been included on
lists maintained by committees. In one instance (Yangon district) a CARE staff spoke of how
the unregistered families had not been included in a village ranking exercise, but would be
added to the beneficiary list “only at the end of distributions if items remain”. An unregistered
man in the Delta complained that some families received less food rations than those received
by others.
 Issues have arisen because of the use of official registration lists for ranking exercises, and
beneficiary lists. CARE needed to change some beneficiary lists by separating or combining
families. In one village, the current system is based on registered families therefore the mother
and her family received bamboo, but not her daughter’s family as they are unregistered.
 Some conflict has arisen through the ranking exercises in Yangon, and through the allocation of
relief items to different levels.
- A case of corruption arose when a committee member had included his relatives in the
lowest level. There was a complaint, and CARE resolved the problem.
- In Twantay, a rumour spread that government would be giving loans to level 1, and
this resulted in conflict as families wanted to move to the wealthiest level 1.
- Some powerful people came to the office to pressurize CARE into distributing to the
higher levels also, but CARE staff resisted the pressure.
- In one village, after CARE left, the committee changed the list, however the
community complained to CARE at the office, and CARE returned to negotiate with the
community. In another village, when challenged by the monitor, the committee said that
another staff had told them to do it that way.
 The short time for assessment (4 villages by 2 people/day) is a big challenge for staff.

Box 4: How targeting is currently happening

Targeted distributions are happening in a very different way in Ayerwaddy district, and in Yangon
district. Within Yangon district there are differences yet again.

In Yangon district, CARE is deciding the number of levels for wealth and vulnerability ranking (three
levels for two townships, and four levels for the third township). The community and the committee
decide on the criteria to be used for each level, and on the families to be assigned to each level.
There is usually some argument, but this is resolved by the committee. The family member names,
gender and age (<5, between 5-12) are recorded and CARE and the committee both remain with a
copy. Family information is not disaggregated in terms of potential other types of vulnerability, such
as elderly, disabled, people living with chronic illness etc. This is a participatory methodology (with
limitations) that takes about half a day in the community, and the village is informed to meet the
day before.

The way the ranking is used for the creation of beneficiary lists is also different in different locations,
depending on what items are allocated to each township by head office and on field level decision
making. It is not clear how these decisions on allocation and beneficiary selection are made. For

15
example, for NFI distribution, in Twantee, level 3 and 4 received family kits. In Kungyangon, level 3
received family kits. In Kawhmu, first level 4 received kits, then when more kits were available level
3, and finally level 2. For shelter, in Twantee, level 3 received 2 plastic sheets. In Kungyangon one
or two plastic sheet were distributed to families depending on an assessment (that included some
household visits to verify). In Kawhmu, all 4 levels received plastic in some areas, whilst in other
areas only the lower levels. They are now carrying out a household survey.

In Ayerwaddy district CARE explains what resources are available to the committee, and shares
criteria. The committee has the responsibility to share criteria with the community, chose
beneficiaries and make a list, using the criteria; to collect the items on behalf of the community on
the day of distribution; and to distribute the items to their community. CARE collects the list from
the village before the distribution and shares information on the distribution. CARE staff visit the
communities (approximately three per day) to monitor the community distribution by the
committee, and collect a distribution list.

In the case of seed distributions to farmers, a rapid assessment of all villages was carried out in 3
days. Meetings were convened and attended by committee members and villagers that were able to
attend. Information collected included farming household, land size, how much seed in hand, and
ploughing capacity of the community. CARE determined criteria for beneficiary selection and
entitlements in a few villages, and then used these criteria for all villages (e.g. % of ration
depending on land size and seed in hand). A piece of paper was provided to village committees on
how to use the criteria to calculate the ration of each farmer. Beneficiary lists with entitlements per
farming household were collected from the communities, and these are checked by CARE staff who
come to collect it (and staff provide help). Distribution time is given to communities given to them,
on a piece of paper, and the committee collect seeds from the CARE office on behalf of the
community.

Participation
 Participation is mainly through assessment and beneficiary selection and distribution. In
Yangon, CARE involves community members in beneficiary selection (through the ranking
exercise). Assessments have required house to house surveys in some instances, and some
focus group discussions with women have taken place to assess their particular needs.
 Participation is minimal in the Delta and contact is mostly through committees. Some
community members said “CARE makes all the decisions”. In particular, vulnerable groups
have little opportunity to participate.
 Committees are mostly made up of men, and the wealthier and more powerful members of the
community, who are in most cases men. The committee members have power in deciding
beneficiary lists, and the nature of distribution (and in some cases this has not been carried out
according to CARE’s criteria).
 Monks have influence in decision making, and in some communities they have helped distribute
within communities through determining the most vulnerable.
 Community members said they believe and trust their committee, who were selected because
of their ability to “speak to NGOs” and organise the transport of relief items from CARE’s end
distribution points to their village. They take full responsibility for distribution. They ensure
smooth management of the distribution.

Feedback and complaint

 Conflict and misunderstanding exits between the community and committee. Villagers are not
aware of feedback opportunities and are not sure who to direct their questions to. Most people
were appreciative of idea of feedback and complaint to CARE.
 However villagers feel hesitant to make complaint to CARE (there is no culture of complaining “
let it be”). Monks are felt to be very trusted people, and communities feel that they make
intelligent decisions. People are not willing/ not able to refuse the committee’s decision,
because they are working tirelessly for us.
 Some people want to be able to complain as a group. There was some reservation of sending a
complaint by boat. Some people may not be able to afford it. It might not be safe for people.
Telephone (few people will use it mostly belong to VPDC etc).

16
  Some information was provided about the suggestion boxes that had been located at CARE’s
end distribution points. However, the suggestion boxes do not have CARE label on them yet,
and the information explaining what they are for is found in a different location, and is not very
visible.
 Some people were not aware of how to contact CARE except for approaching a CARE staff in
the village, and did not always feel they were in a position to approach them. Some people do
not know about the food committee. One unregistered man complained about having less
rations than other people but didn’t know why, or what to do about it. One villager knew about
the suggestion box in his village, but was told by the committee that it was for suggestions
only, and not for complaining.
 However there is some evidence of conflict and misunderstanding arising between the relief
committees and community members, and complaints do arrive at CARE office. Staff referred
to a few incidences of complaint as a result of corruption in villages (mainly bias in beneficiary
selection by the more powerful). These were resolved by CARE staff who negotiated with the
committee and changed the beneficiary lists.

5. Recommendations

Good practice (an enabling environment)

Before the cyclone hit, CARE Myanmar had already identified accountability as an organisational
priority. This organisational commitment was crucial in creating the enabling environment to deal
with humanitarian accountability seriously.

The appointment of a Quality and Accountability advisor was fundamental to creating the space
needed to take steps to put accountability into practice. The coordinator was appointed in the first
month of the response. In view of the significant role that this position occupies, it is crucial to have
such a person in place from day one.

The inter-agency NGO support that is being provided by the NGO liaison officer (through the
Accountability and Learning Working Group) and by the two quality and accountability initiatives
(HAP and Sphere) is important and welcome. Because of the challenging context, most International
and National NGOs are confronting the imperative of piloting approaches, monitoring and manage
risk, and learning from these experiences in putting accountability into practice. So far the platform
is being used successfully for coordinating the translation of materials and for creating opportunities
for training and sharing of experiences.

Key recommendations for immediate action

1. Implementation of accountability is already ongoing and there are several example of good
practice. The next step forward is to finalise and implement an action plan for
improvements – to further strengthen understanding, systems and tools. Agree action plan for
taking Q&A forward (based on options generated during the field level accountability review with
staff). Conduct a debriefing with programme team (especially the Field Office Coordinators) on
the Q&A review that took place and action planning, and get agreement on key areas to focus
on. Share main findings with all field level staff.

2. Awareness raising and capacity building is a priority area to focus on. Continued capacity
building of core Q&A staff is required. While the training workshops and field trip helped to give
staff time to learn about accountability in a practical manner, it is essential to provide on the job
support to field staff. This will be a key responsibility of the Q&A coordinator. In turn a key role
of the core Q&A staff will be to raise the awareness of staff in their programme areas, and to
start building capacity in the practical application of accountability. Link up with the Sphere and
HAP focal point people who have offered to support agencies in developed generic induction and
capacity building materials that can then be adapted to the needs of different agencies. This can
be used to complement and improve upon the capacity building tools for staff that were
developed during this visit.

3. Improving CARE’s information provision is also a key area to move forward with. The Q&A
core staff agreed to meet in the first week of August in order to develop information
17
 dissemination materials for communities, and information fact sheets and need to know check
lists for staff. These tools can help staff communicate to communities and other stakeholders
key information about CARE in a clear and consistent manner. Solicit support from members of
the development team with experience in developing information and educational messaging to
communities. Activities identified by the Q&A staff included:
 Produce materials to support CARE staff in providing key information to communities in a
clear and consistent manner
 Provide guidance and support to Community Facilitators and other field based staff in
working with communities to share information
 Produce materials to display on community notice boards
 Set up notice boards
 Identify other useful tools to aid information provision in Nargis recovery activities (e.g.
Programme Calendar (HAP Tool from HAP Implementation Guide)
One concrete example of information to be communicated to communities (and not just
committees) by staff is that no charges relate to the delivery of items should be expected and
that CARE provides committees with fuel for transport. This should be closely followed up.

4. Strengthen basic monitoring of programmes that incorporates beneficiary feedback. Develop

a plan for continuing the focus group discussions with disaster affected communities and
implement (and improve on) the accountability monitoring tool. In addition develop simple to
use feedback monitoring tools for different areas of CARE’s work using Sphere (e.g. shelter, with
support from Lizzie Babister and watsan, with support from Paul Shanahan) to help assess
impact. Integrate these tools into overall M&E planning at the programme level. Simple ways
to collate and report on the data need to be developed. Opportunities for participatory analysis
of the feedback collected are to be coordinated by the Q&A Coordinator, and should involve the
Q&A staff and other staff from the programme teams, as well as partners as appropriate.
Support is required for data management.

5. Establish internal systems (what happens to the feedback that is collected through
monitoring). This includes simple reporting mechanisms that enable feedback to reach decision
makers at the appropriate levels. Set up Q&A committees at head office and field office level to
ensure that responsibility for responding to feedback is shared and systematically carried out.
Identify appropriate members and convene a first meeting to develop a simple TOR Key roles for
the committees could include:
 Resolving issues that arise
 Help manage risk through a coherent approach
 Reviewing periodic report, including key findings and recommendations
 See roles and responsibilities (Annex 12)

6. At the same time, explore further more formal complaint mechanisms (noting that the
word complaint does not need to be used). Use the ALWG platform to share ideas for piloting
formal complaint mechanism, and ask the HAP focal point for feedback on piloting plans. It is
recommended that:
 CARE establishes a complaints mechanism, with a very clearly defined scope around
CARE’s response.
 CARE pilots the mechanism in an area where CARE has established good relationships
with regional commanders and local authorities, and where CARE can build on the
rationale for the system in improving CARE’s accountability and transparency within the
clear framework of humanitarian principles that CARE promotes with authorities
 CARE builds on their existing experience of receiving and dealing with complaint. In
Yangon division there are some experiences of receiving complaint of corruption at the
community level, and successfully dealing with the complaint to change beneficiary lists
(replacing family of committee members with more vulnerable members of the
community)
 CARE receives complaints directly to CARE, and processes complaints internally
(supported by decision making by the Q&A committees) and then embarks on careful
negotiation with any power holders concerned. At a later date, when CARE has build a
deeper understanding and stronger relationships with villages village level complaints
18
 committees can also be explored with the community. Indigenous complaints mechanisms
need to be better understood over time. As CARE works more closely with communities
during recovery and rehabilitation, there will be opportunity to adapt the system to
ensure that it becomes sustainable and more community driven over time.
 CARE learns through piloting, and is responsive to the need to adapt the system.
 CARE use the development of a complaints mechanism procedure to help develop the
system to receive and respond to complaints, and the communication and decision
making tools required (see example draft Annex 10
 ). Examples of decision making tools are:
- Develop criteria for serious and non serious complaints
- Develop TOR for the field office Q&A management committee
- Develop TOR for the head office Q&A management committee
- Based on TOR, identify who should be members of these committees
- Develop a “how to investigate and respond to complaints guideline” with procedural
guidelines for each type of complaint
- Recruit a new complaints officer for head office Develop TOR
 CARE develops an awareness raising plan, and capacity building tools for field based staff
- Clarify roles and responsibilities of staff
- Train staff in the use of the PRA tool, and provide staff with the materials required
- Provide staff with an need to know check list on CARE and CARE’s project, and on the
complaints mechanism
 CARE develops a communications strategy. This is key in ensuring that the rationale and
results are being communicated in a transparent fashion, in order to manage the risk that
suspicion undermines the system.

7. In the longer term, CARE is intended to implement community based approaches to recovery
and to mobilise the representation and participation of vulnerable groups. Investigate further
how participation can be further promoted in the short term. Link with the ALWG, and the
Social Recovery working group (early recovery cluster) which will be looking to support agencies
in approaches to social recovery and community organisation in the relief and rehabilitation
efforts. Recommendations identified by Q&A staff included:
 Establish a plan for strengthening existing Food Management Committee (until recovery
community mobilisation) e.g. appropriate ways of inclusion of women
 Clarify with FMC their roles and responsibilities, using TOR developed by CARE Myanmar
for its humanitarian work in other area, and the roles and responsibilities of CARE
 Negotiate with committee the involvement of women committee members and vulnerable
groups
 Establish a monthly village tract forum (committee members, and beneficiaries)

8. Develop and provide guidance relating to vulnerability to field based CARE staff. Involve a
wide range of staff in developing this guidance, and keeping it responsive to change’s in people’s
vulnerabilities over time. For example, provide guidance on:
 What is vulnerability, and why vulnerability is important to CARE Myanmar
 Clarifying clear criteria for the selection of beneficiaries for each item and entitlement &
how to communicate and negotiate these criteria with communities
 Clarifying roles and responsibilities of community management communities in relation to
identifying vulnerability, and awareness raising on vulnerability
 Encouraging the committee to analyse vulnerabilities and to collect information on
vulnerabilities through dialogue and using PRA type tools
 How to review with communities (committee and community) the beneficiary list. Some
actions that would help CARE reach most vulnerable:
- Conduct a good enough profiling of the community
- Discuss targeting criteria having established what CARE considers non negotiable
- Disseminate widely the agreed criteria
- Display lists and entitlements
- Provide opportunity for people to challenge the distribution lists (and provide guidance
to staff on how to respond to complaint)
- Investigate and make verification visits
19
 - Revise the list with community committee
- Access monitoring information that can shed light on beneficiary views
Further information related to the issue of unregistered families should be prioritised by the
Q&A team.

9. Review targeting approaches and determine a level of consistency across the townships,
albeit taking into account the different contexts. Establish the essential elements of process that
must be included, and any non negotiables in terms of criteria. Review how this can applied in
terms of the family kits, acknowledging that because of the time delay targeting may need to be
reviewed.

10. Use a Community Profiling Tool to help profile the communities with which we work: to help
us to disaggregate the population, and ensure we are including all groups. Q&A Coordinator to
support each township in keeping up to date profiles of the communities (that are accessible.
Doing a “good enough” analysis of vulnerability is crucial to our accountability. Upon this rests
many decisions that can affect the quality and accountability of our response, including who is
inside and who is left outside of our response, and the impact that we ultimately have (Sphere
asks this of us most strongly in terms of the Targeting Standard). CARE has been carrying out
both blanket and targeted interventions, and with both there is risk of exclusion of the most
vulnerable, or the wrong assistance resulting in little benefit. We need to share simple ways to
do this analysis, building on our experiences of using the Good Enough Guide to “profile the
community”.

11. Identify ways the Q&A Coordinator can be provided with distant support from a distance by
CARE Q&A Coordinator (Jock Baker) and CIUK Advisor e.g. through email and monthly call. In
addition, explore how the Q&A Coordinator for CARE Myanmar can be better linked into the
wider Q&A community of CARE e.g. through the Humanitarian Accountability Reference Group,
or potential membership of CARE’s Q&A standing team.

12. Continue to support the Q&A Coordinator in playing an active role in the inter-agency team of
focal points (being convened over next two months) and explore a role for the Q&A
Coordinator in encouraging and supporting the sustainability of this focal point team. A country
like Myanmar that suffers chronic and periodic emergencies could benefit from its own
interagency standing team to help build a Q&A community of practice, and help tackle the issue
of loss of skill and knowledge in between emergencies. An inter-agency team can also provide
mutual support and learning opportunities for implementing accountability in long term
programming and emergency preparedness.

Recommendations for leadership

1. A challenge that can arise in creating a team of staff with dedicated quality and accountability
roles, is that accountability is mistakenly seen as part of the core work of programme teams, but
as something that is parallel and that is to be carried out by the dedicated accountability staff
only. It is important therefore to stress that accountability is part of everybody’s role. It is
very positive that the core Q&A staff are embedded in programme teams, and are not line
managed by the Coordinator in Yangon, as this sends the right message. This needs to be
reinforced however by support and clear messaging from the leadership. Clear roles and
responsibilities need to demonstrate that overall responsibility rests with senior and project
management, supported by leadership, and technical support from the Q&A Coordinator.

2. Critical is the need for a clear communication strategy that relates to the accountability
commitments and work of CARE, and the rationale behind them. This will be especially important
in promoting and negotiating the accountability work of CARE with other stakeholders, and in
particular the government. Use the support of the ALWG which is supporting agencies in
promoting understanding and accountability between stakeholders. For example, as in other
countries, the ALWG is currently working on an identifying an agreed upon set of context specific
guiding principles that can be used by agencies. The guiding principles are based on those
already widely accepted with the international community, such as the Red Cross and NGO Code
of Conduct.
20
3. There is little culture of making complaint in Myanmar, and little confidence in the idea that
submitting feedback (whether positive or negative) can be perceived as a positive or welcomed
action, or something that can bring benefit. Most communities told how if they do not get the
assistance they expected or require they will just “let it be”. This is also reflected amongst staff,
and a culture of feedback will need to be created over time. Identify opportunities where staff
can practice giving feedback, and can be exposed to the benefits this can bring. Creating
space for field staff to feed back to head office staff would be one way of modelling how feedback
can take place, and demonstrating what happens to the feedback that has been provided (two
way feedback).

4. Senior management needs to be ready to take (managed) risks associated with the
practicalities and implications of setting up a complaints system (as part of CARE’s feedback and
complaints). Although complaints mechanism should never be implemented in isolation, the
reality of humanitarian situations also means that mistakes can be made, the situation can
change rapidly on the ground and that in some instances it may be necessary to strike a balance
in working with community organisations that may not necessarily be truly representative of the
poor or marginalised. Add..

5. The issue of vulnerability must be at the centre of CARE’s review of their recovery strategy,
including exploring CARE’s role in permanent shelter. Pre- Nargis, the international community
led by the UN was advocating and making ground in terms of humanitarian space, based on
principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Post Nargis, humanitarian negotiation
and advocacy is recognised as both essential and an opportunity for promoting greater
humanitarian protection. Advocating for the inclusion of people excluded from assistance, or for
the inclusion of issues of vulnerability will be challenging and sensitive. Government regulation
complicates the responses and can be difficult and sensitive to influence.

6. The CO has made great effort to locate external technical assistance and to ensure that this
technical assistance is used to give staff the quality support they are entitled to. External
support has included Q&A, information management, water and sanitation, shelter, logistics and
warehouse management, proposal writing, human resources in order to help develop strategy for
recovery, strengthen systems and build staff capacity. Country Office is also currently seeking
support in important cross cutting areas such as gender and psychosocial support. Evaluate the
timing, length and approach of support provided.

Recommendations for the longer term

1. Begin to explore the implications of CARE that CARE’s accountability commitments may have for
our partnerships, as well as how CARE can support partners in developing their own capacities.
Share experiences and lessons with the AGWG, especially those NGOs that are currently working
with partners.

2. The CARE accountability benchmarks are not fixed in stone, and are currently being tested in
various emergencies, including here in Myanmar. Identify opportunities to collect feedback on
CARE’s HAF and in particular the relevance and application of the accountability benchmarks
based on the experience of applying them. For example, a meeting can be carried out with a
small group of key staff (inside and outside of emergency response) to solicit their feedback,
based on their current experiences The advisor can provide some guiding questions for the
feedback session.

3. Practitioners request short, easy to read cases studies of putting accountability into practice from
other agencies or countries. CARE Myanmar, resulting from very explicit efforts to put
accountability into practice in an extremely challenging context, has an opportunity to make an
important contribution to wider learning (what is good enough in the Myanmar context?)
Learning may also be relevant and useful for CARE’s emergency preparedness work and long
term programming. Q&A Coordinator, supported by advisor, to facilitate the development of a
case study of CARE’s Myanmar’s experience of putting accountability into practice (what we did,
good practices and lessons learned). CARE Myanmar’s After Action Review and evaluation will
21
provide an opportunity to generate lessons learned from developing the accountability systems
and to incorporate in to the case study any more robust evidence of the difference it may, or
may not have made.

22