User:Joel Mc/Code

The Code of Conduct for International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief was drawn up in 1992 by the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response to set ethical standards for organizations involved in humanitarian work. In 1994, the SCHR adopted the code and made the signing of it a condition for membership in the alliance.

Formulation of the code

Although the initiative began with a call by the French Red Cross to the IFRC to draw up a code of conduct relating to humanitarian aid in response to natural disasters, many of the sponsoring agencies had been involved in complex emergencies such as Biafra and Rwanda and were also looking for guidance for operating in the midst of violent conflicts. As of 2007 there were more than 400 organizations who have signed the code,^[1] registering "their willingness to incorporate its principles into their work."^[2]

At 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which included delegates from governments, the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, the IFRC, and the ICRC, a resolution was passed which “took note of” and “welcomed” the code giving it wide international recognition.^[3]

Code articles

Principle Commitments of the Code^[4]

The humanitarian imperative comes first;
Aid is given regardless of the race, creed or nationality of the recipients and without adverse distinction of any kind. Aid priorities are calculated on the basis of need alone;
Aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint;
We shall endeavor not to be used as an instrument of government foreign policy;
We shall respect culture and custom;
We shall attempt to build disaster response on local capacities;
Ways shall be found to involve program beneficiaries in the management of relief aid;
Relief aid must strive to reduce vulnerabilities to future disaster as well as meeting basic needs;
We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources;
In our information, publicity and advertising activities, we shall recognize disaster victims as dignified human beings, not hopeless objects.

Types of principles

The 10 articles of the code fall into two types: Articles 1 through 4 are core humanitarian principles required for humanitarian response. The remaining articles are more aspirational and are important to improving the quality of both humanitarian and developmental work.

The humanitarian imperative, based on the principle of humanity, together with other core principles, impartiality, and independence, stress that humanitarian response must be based on need alone. They are derived, from the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Red Cross movement. However the principle of neutrality, which is directly related to the special international role of the Red Cross in not included in the code of conduct. Organizations such as military forces and for-profit companies may deliver assistance to communities affected by disaster, but they are not considered by the humanitarian sector as humanitarian agencies as they do not meet all of the core principles.

Articles, 5 through 10, are derived particularly from experience in development work. Most of the original sponsors have had decades of experience working in the development sector and the articles reflect their experience and commitment. Some development agencies are deeply committed to such an approach while being unable to subscribe to the core principles.

Voluntary nature

The code of conduct is a voluntary code which is self-enforced by each of the signatory organizations.

The code includes two annexes, Annex I, Recommendations to governments of disaster affected countries, and Annex II, Recommendations to donor governments.

Application of the Code

The code of conduct is widely used to guide conduct within humanitarian agencies. As at 30/8/07, 427 agencies have signed up with the IFRC to "register our support for the Code of Conduct and ... endeavour to incorporate its principles into our work".

The UK's Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) has used the code for evaluating humanitarian action since their evaluation of the Gujarat Earthquake 2001, covering many subsequent evaluations. Evaluations have used the code as a framework, presenting their findings of agencies' performance in relation to each principle.

However evaluators have found that the code does not provide an objective set of standards which can be used to measure agencies' performance. They have sometimes presented a summary of their conclusions as a rating of overall performance (across all agencies) on a scale of 1 - 10 against each principle of the code. This has been based on the aggregation of their impressions and their own judgement, not on objective measurement. (For instance, see the Gujarat evaluation referenced below. The Tsunami evaluation mentioned below comments (p. 50) that this was not possible, because different team members had different perceptions.)

This kind of summary has been found to be contentious. Some of the humanitarian agencies covered by the Gujarat evaluation found it to be a crisp and accessible summary. Others found it to be too subjective and generalised to do justice to the variety of interventions and successes/failures.

Limits and misinterpretations

In 2005, the DEC issued its "Independent Evaluation of the DEC Tsunami Crisis Response". The opening paragraph of the executive summary states "Following usual DEC practice, the primary measure of assessment is the Red Cross Code. This is a precise set of standards, signed up to by all DEC members; by using the standards, personal judgement by the evaluators can be kept to a minimum."

This is at odds with the conclusions of Hillhorst's review of the code (reference below), which states (p. 364): "The code does not provide ... clear proactive regulation with respect to the provision of humanitarian aid. The code is not regulatory because of its cautious language, with phrases like ‘we shall endeavour to’, instead of ‘we shall’. By using this language, room for manoeuvre is also created for INGOs with different approaches. The cautious language makes the code comprehensive and appropriate as an instrument for discussing policy and operational matters and dilemmas. It makes the code less useful, though, for NGOs seeking guidance vis-à-vis their actions and for purposes of accountability."

"Furthermore, the code is not regulatory because the different articles can lead to contradictory demands."

Hillhorst's paper draws on a survey of code signatories and a conference to review the code, as well as detailed analysis of the code itself. It is hard to disagree with her conclusions. The code was designed as a set of principles to guide behaviour, not a set of standards. Principles like "We shall attempt to build disaster response on local capacities" are too broad to be used as precise performance standards.

These points are echoed in the full report of the "Independent Evaluation of the DEC Tsunami Crisis Response", which comments (p. 3) "In making a judgement about the DEC performance, much depends on assumptions and expectations."