Skip to content
Check Screen Reader Mode to make this survey compatible with screen readers.
Check Screen Reader Mode to make this survey compatible with screen readers.

HAR Conversation Guide – Participant Voting Form

1.Opening dilemma: Life-saving vs. dignity of life — Context: When resources are constrained, the sector often defaults to ‘life-saving’ assistance at scale, treating accountability, community feedback, and dignity as optional extras that can be cut when budgets shrink. From the report: across more than 200 organisations verified against the CHS, performance is strongest on internal systems and weakest where direct engagement with communities is required, especially complaints, feedback and participation. HAR 2026, p.10. Statement: “IF we have reduced funding, THEN it is better to reduce the number of people we serve to ensure the assistance we do provide meets core standards of dignity, rather than stretching fewer resources across more people.”(Required.)
2.Question 1A: Control of resources — Context: Real power-shifting means international agencies give up default control and resources. From the report: donors and agencies committed through the Grand Bargain to direct 25% of humanitarian funding as directly as possible to local and national actors. In 2025 multilateral organisations received 47% of primary donor funding and local and national actors received 4.3%. HAR 2026, p.38. Statement: “IF international agencies hand real funding and decision-making power to local and national actors, THEN many international agencies will shrink and lose their footprint.”(Required.)
3.Question 1B: Building collective trust through due diligence passporting — Context: Top-down donor compliance assessments are duplicative and take away resources from other work, when there could be a shift to a collective approach such as due diligence passporting, for example using CHS verification results. From the report: Luxembourg describes a one audit, multiple recognitions approach in which a single CHS audit meets the compliance requirements of FCDO, ECHO, Luxembourg and Danida, and has piloted subsidised CHS audits for local partners with HQAI. HAR 2026, p.46. Statement: “IF international donors accept mutual due diligence passporting, THEN local actors will gain more direct control of funds, but donors and international actors must relinquish their own compliance frameworks.”(Required.)
4.Question 1C: Duty of care and staff risk disparity — Context: International agencies often maintain safety metrics by transferring operational delivery, and therefore physical risk, to local partner organisations without funding their core safety, security, and staff welfare costs. From the report: in a study of 700 frontline workers across 60 countries, 96% of those facing risk were local staff. HAR 2026, p.54. Statement: “IF we pledge equal duty of care across all operations, THEN we should only partner with or fund local organisations if we fully cover their staff safety, insurance, and risk management costs, even if it increases project overheads.”(Required.)
5.Question 2A: Mandatory accountability — Context: The sector has the standards and expected norms. What it lacks are consistent consequences when they are ignored. From the report: verification remains largely voluntary, and many major IASC organisations still do not systematically measure or publish their own performance against the CHS. HAR 2026, p.33. Statement: “IF accountability standards become mandatory, with funding tied to compliance, THEN there must be consequences like loss of funding, at least until organisations adapt.”(Required.)
6.Question 2B: Safeguarding and PSEAH — Context: Despite policy commitments, SEAH remains prevalent, and accountability for perpetrators remains a challenge. Collective solutions like the CHS Misconduct Disclosure Scheme (MDS) and the Harmonised Reporting Scheme (HRS) are only effective if organisations work together to trust each other’s processes, act on collective data and invest in safeguarding as a shared responsibility. From the report: the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme has blocked 677 staffing applications linked to previous misconduct investigations. HAR 2026, p.48. Statement: “IF we recognise that protection from SEAH requires collective action, THEN we must be willing to share information, align our approaches and rely on collective mechanisms beyond our own organisational systems, to strengthen accountability and protection across the aid sector.”(Required.)
7.Question 2C: CHS verification as a funding condition — Context: Most organisations endorse the Core Humanitarian Standard in principle, yet there is resistance when verification becomes a condition for funding or partnership. From the report: across a three-year cycle from initial audit to renewed audit, verified organisations show marked improvements across all nine CHS commitments. HAR 2026, p.29. Statement: “IF CHS verification is made mandatory for all organisations to access funding, THEN we must accept that unverified organisations will be excluded from grants, even if it temporarily delays funding or excludes established partners.”(Required.)
8.Question 3A: Principles vs. funding and access — Context: Trust depends on the sector's actions matching its stated values, even when doing so is politically costly. From the report: in 2025 at least 326 humanitarians were recorded as killed across 21 countries, bringing the three-year total to over 1,010, and perpetrators continue to face limited political or judicial consequences. HAR 2026, p.47. Statement: “IF humanitarian actors consistently call out violations of international law and refuse politically driven funding, THEN some traditional funding and access may close, even as other sources open.”(Required.)
9.Question 3B: Admitting systemic failures — Context: Achieving greater honesty requires publicly admitting systemic failures, such as safeguarding breaches or unequal staff treatment, rather than shielding organisational reputations. From the report: stronger approaches to investigations, whistleblowing and safer recruitment signal progress towards greater transparency, but these efforts have yet to consistently address existing impunity across the sector. HAR 2026, p.48. Statement: “IF agencies are honest and transparent about their internal safeguard breaches, THEN they risk short-term donor backlash and media scandal for long-term sector integrity.”(Required.)
Current Progress,
0 of 9 answered