Introduction and Focus of the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards

The Sphere Project is based on two beliefs. First, all possible steps should be taken to alleviate human suffering that arises from calamity and conflict. Second, all individuals have a right to life with dignity.¹ The opportunity to earn an income via employment or operation of a business is fundamental to the dignity of individuals and to assisting them to recover from crises. A vocation and the ability to practice it profitably empower affected individuals and communities to regain charge of their lives by meeting their own needs as they best see fit. This right is articulated in many international conventions and documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the Declaration of Philadelphia by the International Labor Organization (1944); the United Nations Charter (1945); the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966); and most recently in the preamble to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (2005).

Increasingly, practitioners and donors who respond to disasters are recognizing the need for rapid, tailored support for the livelihoods, enterprises, and economies affected, in the wake of a crisis. This is often done in parallel with emergency efforts to meet basic human needs for shelter, water, food, and health services. In the past, economic recovery assistance has been viewed as a later-stage activity. However, disasters—such as the Indian Ocean tsunami and the prolonged conflicts in Haiti—illustrate that an economy continues to function during a crisis, albeit at a reduced or shrinking rate of growth. Affected populations require sources of income, at a minimum to survive and at best to thrive once again.

“Phased” approaches refer to relief/emergency activities that are conducted for a period of time, followed by a time gap before development activities are introduced. However, many crises become stuck in the relief phase, and economic development programs are not implemented quickly enough. Additionally, research shows that in conflict environments, phased approaches hamper economic reconstruction and may even exacerbate the risk of renewed tensions.² Phased approaches may also lead to higher aid dependency from beneficiaries.

Economic programming in such environments may include channeling basic relief though local businesses, using local procurement and cash-based assistance. It can also include activities that support the more rapid recovery of affected enterprises by enabling them to re-establish viable economic activities and/or increasing their productivity.

To date, not all assistance to support the recovery of affected livelihoods and enterprises is as effective as it could be. Assistance efforts often ignore market dynamics and support unviable economic activities or promote activities that crowd out local enterprise. This results in assistance with fleeting or even harmful impacts. Individuals’ incentives to invest in and operate viable businesses are distorted, and thus the pace of overall economic recovery slows.

This lack of an effective response is due to many factors. If the economic-recovery field is to find practices with stronger and more scalable impact, it must develop consensus among the practitioner and donor communities regarding minimum standards for economic recovery practices. This requires an examination of critical program elements, such as assessment, program design, monitoring and evaluation, coordination, and technical best practices.

“The programmatic focus of the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards (ERS) is on strategies and interventions designed to promote enterprises, employment, and cash flow and asset management among affected enterprises and livelihoods.” These include four distinct technical program areas: financial services, asset interventions, employment creation, and enterprise development. It emphasizes encouraging enterprises and livelihoods to re-start or improve markets.

The standards set out here do not attempt to cover the related but separate field of market-integrated relief, which is the practice of working through markets to provide relief and basic services. To some extent, market-integrated relief and economic recovery can overlap in the means and activities undertaken. However, market-integrated relief programs do not necessarily promote broad-based economic recovery. Additionally, livelihoods and enterprise interventions have a different target population. They focus on those economic sectors that have the greatest impact on income and employment and reach the greatest number of targeted enterprises and households.

These standards do not address macroeconomic interventions to promote economic recovery, such as fiscal and monetary policy or trade policies and institutions. These interventions are outside the purview of most international humanitarian agencies and tend to be undertaken by governments and bilateral or multilateral organizations.

Audience for the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards

In crisis environments, a broad range of practitioners engage directly or indirectly in strategies to promote economic recovery. Therefore, these standards were developed with the following three groups in mind:

• Practitioners experienced in emergency situations, but less familiar with economic recovery initiatives
• Practitioners experienced in economic development, but unaccustomed to crisis environments
• Practitioners and programs working in multiple interventions or sectors in crisis environments (e.g. health, education, infrastructure, or HIV/AIDS)

Background and Development of the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards

The origins of the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards are rooted in past crises, e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami, and the increasing prevalence of prolonged disasters and conflicts, e.g., in Ethiopia and Afghanistan. These crises highlighted the need for strategies that support 1) the stabilization and/or re-emergence of enterprises as a source of income and employment for affected populations, and 2) the development and strengthening of institutions to support the stabilization and coping mechanisms of households to weather these crises.

Member organizations of the SEEP Network, like practitioners more broadly in the humanitarian assistance community, noted the same trend. Often, too little, too late was done to promote the re-emergence of the local private sector in NGO (non-governmental organization) responses. SEEP members were frustrated at these missed opportunities and concerned that poorly implemented responses risked fostering dependency among the affected populations. They were also concerned that affected populations were choosing their economic activities and investments based on the amount of humanitarian support available, rather than on the rate of return.

In response to these concerns, over the past six years, the SEEP Network hosted member efforts to explore the challenges and emerging practices of economic recovery in crisis environments. Members repeatedly identified the need for more consistent, technically sound interventions, and for the development of a knowledge base in the field.

SEEP sought and received funding from USAID through the FIELD-Support LWA (Leader with Associates) mechanism to convene a task force of practitioners to develop the first draft of economic recovery standards. In September 2007, SEEP hosted a workshop in Washington, D.C., to launch the Minimum Standards process. A broad consortium of 38 practitioners from 30 international humanitarian agencies discussed key issues in the field and together defined the technical focus and structure of the Standards.³ Over the following months, six practitioner-led working groups collaborated to develop the standards, key indicators, and guidance notes found in this document. Each working group comprised a mix of practitioners, representing a depth of experience in relief and development environments and in the technical areas covered by the Standards.

The result of this process was the consultation draft posted on the SEEP Network’s website for stakeholder review and feedback in July of 2008. The revised draft was presented in November 2008 for a second round of feedback; the result is this first edition. There are plans to field-test and gather further consultations on the Standards in 2009 and 2010, with a revision in late 2010.

The SEEP Network, founded in 1985 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., is an association of more than 70 international NGOs that support micro- and small enterprise development programs around the world. SEEP’s mission is to connect microenterprise practitioners in a global learning community. As such, SEEP brings practitioners together to produce practical, innovative solutions to key challenges in the industry; SEEP then disseminates these solutions through learning events, publications, and technical assistance.⁴

Frameworks and Sequencing in Designing Strategies for Economic Recovery

The Minimum Economic Recovery Standards are founded on the understanding that an array of strategies and interventions that address different needs and different timelines are required in crisis environments. In practice, however, donors and practitioners often lose sight of how short-term, immediate strategies impact longer-term recovery. This is due to the pressures and rapid evolution of the environment, funding cycles, and the limited information available.

In crisis environments, short-term goals necessarily focus on stabilizing households and providing for basic needs. However, the philosophy of these Minimum Standards states that immediate post-crisis programming can, and in fact should, facilitate longer-term recovery of markets and institutions. This requires an up-front commitment to consider and as appropriate strengthen local institutions and markets early in the recovery process, to lay the foundation for later activities. Practitioners and donors must also gain an awareness of cyclical economic and social needs and linkages. This will help in understanding the “ripple effect” of interventions and in managing it by coordinating with other programs and local institutions.

In the past, practitioners and donors have tried to identify a correct sequence to recovery and development interventions in crisis environments. Unfortunately, the steps to economic recovery cannot be simplified to one sequence, or even one list of interventions, due to the broad array of environments affected by crisis. Rather, in selecting appropriate strategies, the Standards urge taking into consideration a number of factors, such as the economy (e.g., land, human capital), the state of existing institutions, the type of crisis, and its root causes and effects.

Currently, there is no consensus on a definitive framework for economic recovery programs in crisis environments. Therefore, these Minimum Standards are not based on any one framework for economic or livelihoods programming. There will likely always be a variety of frameworks used in these programs, since different economic development programs boast a wide array of assessment methodologies, goals, target populations, and available means. To address this issue, the Common Standards offer recommendations for structuring program strategies, operations, and decision-making.

Figure 1: Impacts of Crises at the Household, Market, and Macro Levels of crises.JPG (Graphic adapted from Tim Nourse, Tracy Gerstle, Alex Snelgrove, David Rinck, and Mary McVay, “Market Development in Crisis Environments: Emerging Lessons for Achieving Pro-Poor Economic Reconstruction,” SEEP, 2007.)

Figure 1 reviews the range of determinants and impacts of different types of crises at different levels of an economy. This framework can be an analysis tool to identify appropriate strategies and interventions, depending on the impacts of the crisis and the economy and environment in which it occurred.

How to Use the Minimum Standards

The Minimum Standards span the program cycle from initial assessment of affected markets, enterprises, and households; through program development and implementation; to impact monitoring and knowledge management. It offers a set of minimum standards, key indicators, and guidance notes that inform humanitarian action and economic recovery efforts in crisis-affected environments.

Like the Sphere Handbook on which it is based, this document is not intended as a “how-to” manual and therefore does not provide detailed strategies or resources for assessing, designing, and implementing economic recovery programs in the field. Instead, for readers who desire more of a “how-to” manual, there are a number of manuals and toolkits emerging from international organizations that provide practical guidance in the field of economic recovery, across a number of crisis environments for different types of interventions. At the end of the standards for each technical section, there is a list of resources that offer more information in this area.

The Minimum Standards are presented in six categories. It is critical that the first two categories—Standards Common to All Economic Recovery Interventions and Assessments and Analysis Standards—be read first, before turning to each relevant technical section. The standards outlined in these two sections provide the overarching system under which all the minimum standards operate.

Effective economic recovery programs must be based upon a clear understanding of the context. Additionally, in volatile environments, quality programs need mechanisms and resources to monitor changing conditions and adapt their strategies and activities accordingly. The flexibility to provide high-quality analysis and program implementation requires technically sound staff and the willingness and ability to partner with a range of organizations and market actors, both local and international. A culture and system of learning and knowledge sharing, within and among all organizations engaged in the response, is also critically important. The first two sets of standards provide indicators and guidance on what is needed to ensure this level of response. The remaining four sets of standards then address specific technical areas regularly used by economic recovery practitioners to promote incomes, employment, and household resource management among affected populations.

How to Read the Minimum Standard

The Minimum Standards articulate the minimum level of technical and other assistance to be provided in promoting the recovery of economies and livelihoods affected by crisis. Each standard is presented as follows:

• The Minimum Standards are qualitative in nature and specify the minimum levels to be attained.
• The key indicators are signals that indicate whether the Minimum Standards are being attained. They provide a way to measure and communicate the impact (or result) of programs, as well as the process or methods used.
• The guidance notes include specific points to consider when applying the Minimum Standards and indicators in different situations, guidance on tackling practical difficulties, and advice on priority issues. They may also include critical issues relating to the standards or indicators and describe dilemmas, controversies, or gaps in current knowledge. h5

Six Categories of Minimum Standards

• Standards Common to All Economic Recovery Interventions

This section focuses on the essential characteristics of programs to ensure effective implementation and scalable impacts across all types of economic recovery interventions. It addresses such critical issues as staff security and capacity building; coordination of strategies and interventions with other responding agencies and governments; ensuring a market-based orientation to programming; and documenting, leveraging, and disseminating programmatic learning to improve upon results.

• Standards for Assessment and Analysis in Crisis Environments

This section focuses on the use of assessment and analysis to frame programmatic strategies by using appropriate information to inform interventions to be timely and relevant, while staying responsive as needs change based on the evolution of the crisis environment.

• Standards for Access to Assets

This section focuses on interventions used to protect, replace, and increase assets lost by households and enterprises during crises, via means that are complementary to other economic recovery strategies used in the medium and longer term.

• Standards for Financial Services

This section focuses on interventions used to build a base for the introduction and/or expansion of financial services to enterprises and households, in coordination with complementary interventions including asset accumulation.

• Standards for Employment Creation

This section focuses on interventions that facilitate employment opportunities with fair remuneration that do not jeopardize the resources on which livelihoods are based.

• Standards for Enterprise Development

This section focuses on how to strengthen existing and new enterprises.

Timeframe

The timeframe in which the Minimum Standards are used depends largely on the context. The Minimum Standards are applicable across a range of crisis settings, from early response in emergencies to the transition into early reconstruction and longer-term development. Importantly, these standards are designed to promote strategies and interventions that are cognizant of the longer term—that is, of rebuilding working markets that will endure for years to come, well beyond the recovery phase to a non-emergency phase.

The indicators in this handbook are not universally applicable to every situation or to every potential user. Depending on the context, it may take weeks, months, or even years to achieve some of the standards and indicators identified. Where relevant, the guidance notes suggest ideal timelines for the implementation of the indicators. In some cases, the Minimum Standards and key indicators may be achieved without external assistance. However, in many cases, it may be necessary for agencies to coordinate with one another and others to achieve them. In all contexts, program strategies and interventions should not undermine, but should support and/or complement existing local services, markets, and institutions, in order to promote the transition to long-term sustainability.

The Difference between Minimum Standards and Key Indicators

The Minimum Standards are based on the principle that affected populations have a right to life with dignity. This includes the opportunity to earn an income via employment or operation of a business. The Standards articulate the minimum level of technical and other assistance to be provided in promoting the recovery of economies and livelihoods affected by crisis. The Minimum Standards are qualitative and are meant to be universal and applicable in any operating environment.

The key indicators for each standard are signals that show whether the standard has been attained. The indicators function as tools to measure and communicate the impact (or result) of programs, as well as the process (or methods) used. Without the key indicators, the Minimum Standards would be little more than statements of good intent—difficult to put into practice.

The guidance notes in each chapter relate to specific points that should be considered when applying the standards in different situations. They offer advice on priority issues and on tackling practical difficulties. They may also describe dilemmas, controversies, or gaps in current knowledge. Guidance notes relate to specific key indicators, and the link is signaled in the text. Key indicators should always be read in conjunction with the relevant guidance notes.

Cross-Cutting Issues, Including Working with Vulnerable Groups

In the development of the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards, care has been taken to address several important issues within the relevant standards, rather than dealing with them in a separate section. These include working with vulnerable groups, gender, and the environment. The Minimum Standards cannot address all of these cross-cutting issues comprehensively, but it recognizes their importance.

The term “vulnerable groups” refers to categories of individuals most frequently at risk in disasters: women, children, older people, disabled people, and people living with HIV/AIDS. In certain contexts, people may also become vulnerable for reason of ethnic origin, religious or political affiliation, or displacement. This is not an exhaustive list, but it includes those most frequently identified. Specific vulnerabilities include people’s ability to cope and survive in a conflict or disaster, and their risk of being exploited during recovery. As appropriate to the strategy and intervention undertaken, those most at risk should be identified.

Scope and Limitations

Inevitably, there is a tension between the formulation of universal standards and the ability to apply them in practice. Each context is different. In some instances, local conditions may make the realization of all standards and indicators unattainable. When this is the case, the gap between the standards and indicators put forth here and the actual result must be described, including the reasons for the difference and what needs to be changed.

The Minimum Standards for the six technical areas do not stand alone; they are interdependent. Frequently, the standards described in one section need to be addressed in conjunction with standards described in others. When appropriate, guidance notes cross-reference other relevant standards, indicators, and guidance notes.

The Minimum Standards and the Sphere “Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response” will not solve all of the problems of responding in crisis environments. However, they do offer tools for humanitarian agencies, governments, and local populations to enhance the effectiveness and quality of their economic assistance, and thus make a significant difference in the lives of people affected by crisis.

History of the Sphere Project and Its Usage

The Sphere Project’s “Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response” (hereafter Sphere Handbook), which was launched in 1997 by a group of humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, articulate what people affected by disasters have a right to expect from humanitarian assistance. The Sphere Handbook includes the Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards for the core sectors of water and sanitation, food security, nutrition and food aid, shelter and site management, and health services. Today the Sphere Handbook is largely seen as the standard for humanitarian assistance in these sectors, and many humanitarian agencies, donors, and governments use it to guide their interventions and responses.

The Handbook is a living document, managed by the Sphere Project and the Sphere Board, which consists of 16 international humanitarian agencies. The Handbook was developed with the input of thousands of individuals from over 400 organizations representing 80 countries. Its adoption and use is regularly promoted through regional events on a global basis, as well as other resources to promote understanding of the standards.

As a complement to the core standards presented in the Sphere Handbook, there are ongoing efforts to develop companion modules in other areas critical to relief and recovery in crisis environments, such as education and livestock management. The Minimum Economic Recovery Standards presented here are being developed in coordination with the Sphere Project, with the long-term goal of being accepted as a companion module. The hope is that by coordinating the development and format of these standards with the Sphere Project, they will be easily accessible to the widest possible community of humanitarian workers and agencies.