Many thanks to Action Contre la Faim, who hosted this seminar and provided the room and all material and logistic means needed for its organisation. We also thank all the participants for the time and energy invested in the work done over these two days. Finally, we thank all those who, from far or near, participated in the preparation of this seminar.

The Quality Project was launched this year, with a two-day seminar, during which the work achieved in the "year 0" (2001) was presented and the objectives for "year 1" (2002) were defined. These 2 days served to redefine the methods of work, the mode of operation and the "governance" of the Quality Project for the two years to come. Around 20 participants, representing 12 NGOs, gathered in the Action Contre la Faim headquarters during 2 days.

A considerable amount of work was achieved:

• Feedback on the "year 0" activities,

• Definition of the terms relating to quality,

• Clarification of the political and technical implications of the Quality Project

One of the issues was to address the research done on quality in the humanitarian sector from the perspective of similar work done in other areas of sectors (health, industry, social economy, etc.).

Among the important decisions taken, the following were noted: 

• The important role to be taken up by Coordination SUD for the political management and the lobbying on the Quality Project, notably with the French public authorities.

• The importance of improving the inventory of methodological tools from the development world, in order to see how to adapt as many as tools as possible to emergency contexts.

• The orientation taken by the project: "to promote the search for quality through the elaboration of a questioning process rather than through the elaboration of standard responses."

From 1998 to 2000, a number of NGOs joined forces, through the Quality platform, to stand against the standardisation process that was being implemented in the humanitarian sector. The platform was then challenged, at the end of 1999, with the question: "and what do you propose?". The basis of the Quality Project was thus established and this led to the collective writing of a first project document at the end of 2000.

The year 2001 constituted the year 0 of the project (pilot year), during which the method was developed, objectives were specified, modes of operation and of political piloting were defined and means (human and financial resources) were gathered. During this same year, the needs of partner NGOs became clearer, and important issues to be debated emerged. The year 2002 will constitute the year 1 of the Quality Project. Before starting, it was found necessary to clarify certain issues with the partners to the Project.

The objective of this seminar, is therefore to define and validate collectively the implications of quality processes for humanitarian NGOs, the objectives of the Quality Project, the method of work to be adopted, the expected results, and the mode of political steering of the Quality Project.

The present proceedings, while presenting the contents of the seminar, also lay down the foundations of the Quality Project.

The Quality Project is emerging in a general environment with a history of quality processes, as well as in a specific humanitarian environment which must be described (first part). The second part specifies the issues at stake in the quality process for the group of partners. An inventory of various dynamics already put in place by individual project partners was necessary to highlight how each one is addressing the question of "quality". It was achieved during the year 0 (third part). The presentation of the 7 key points of the Quality Project in the 4^th part makes it possible to apprehend the project as a whole.

Quality is today implemented in several sectors (health, industry, economy, etc.), after having undergone a certain evolution. It is important to highlight the essential points of this evolution and to study its similarities with the situation of humanitarian interventions today.

1.1.1. From quality control to quality assurance

The first quality processes were introduced at the beginning of the 1930's in the USA, in sectors that involved complex processes and considerable financial means (telephone manufacturers, e.g. Bell to start with, followed by a generalisation in the arms sector, automobile sector, etc.). They were implemented as a response to the numerous defective products recorded at the end of the production chain. This first process, named Quality Control, consists essentially of an a posteriori verification (at the end of the chain). The advantages and importance of quality control were soon found to be pertinent in other parts of the world, such as in Japan -then under reconstruction- and in France. Following the evolution of the economic context -transition from a production economy to a market economy, and from a supply strategy to a demand strategy- the concept of quality was generalised to all the important steps in the production process, as well as to the distribution and commercialisation. This led to the concept of Total Quality Control (Figure 1), a trans-hierarchical and inter-sectoral approach to quality at all levels of the company.

For slightly more than a decade, market demands have reinforced the need to have a permanent trust between trade partners. This led to the evolution of the concept of "quality" to "Quality assurance", which emphasises the prevention of failures of the production system and the obligation to systematically prove the pursuit and verification of quality.

Can this conceptual evolution -from ex-post control to the prevention of incidents during the process- be applied to the humanitarian sector? While the search for quality in this sector is topical, deficiencies of post-evaluations have been highlighted. The need to recognise problems further upstream, to evaluate in "real-time", to improve the assessment capacity, and to develop conception and monitoring tools in order to avoid errors was reaffirmed.

1.1.2. From the simplicity to the complexity of the concept

At the beginning of quality processes, things were simple. The needs of the following entities had to be taken into consideration:

• of the client, in terms of performance requirements (function of use: technical aspects; function of esteem: relational aspect), deadlines and costs;
• of the supplier, in terms of development and well-being;
• of the client/supplier relationship (founded trust)

Later on, all becomes more complicated, as the number of elements to take into consideration between the need and the delivered product increases (see Figure 2). 

The evolution of societies has introduced new needs, which comprise several aspects at a time. Each need makes the demand increasingly exacting. This demand, due to a more or less exact translation, is only partly explicit, and the implicit part needs to be perceived with subtle intelligence. The response to this demand depends on how the organisation responsible for responding to it comprehends it. It also depends on the organisation's competence and experience, at a technical and human level, as well as on its resources (limited, in most cases).

It is thus obvious that the delivered product cannot satisfy exactly the original need. The implication for the organisation is to reduce to a maximum the gap between the need and the delivered product.

This complexity results in the complexity of the production process for a good or service. The example of the production of care in hospital environments, illustrated by Figure 3 below, is significant.

We note, in this evolution, that the production of care is no longer the outcome of an individual's work, but of a collective work, calling upon individuals at different levels and with different technical skills. All the links in the care production chain are important and used to obtain a result of quality. The awareness and the involvement of each person are thus necessary. This implies a certain co-ordination and a shared meaning within the teams.

This leads to a certain concern within the teams about whether they are able to master the complexity of the care production. This, in turn, calls for the need to build trust by bringing evidence of the quality, for both the professionals and the customers. From this need to found trust stems that of building the Quality.

The complexity of situations is obviously also an element of the humanitarian landscape. This complexity lies at the institutional level (absence of referral and regulation structure, donor pressure, support to more or less reliable local partners), at the level of the environment in which humanitarian NGOs operate (high risk, confused political situation, priorities difficult to decide, short implementation deadlines), and at the level of the needs to be satisfied in the field (related to various fields of competence, such as health, shelter, food security, etc.). In their attempt to respond to the needs of the field, humanitarian NGOs are both clients (with regards to the donors) and suppliers (for the populations). The situation can be even more complex with NGOs also acting as "suppliers" for the donors (visibility, image) and "clients" for the "beneficiaries" (programmes with a high level of local participation). The complexity of humanitarian NGOs' task (Figure 2) is thus increased by a greater share of implicit demand, very short implementation deadlines, and the satisfaction of donors' expectations.

The above observations confirm the need to implement quality processes in the humanitarian sector. The trust to be founded must be shared between the public and private donors, humanitarian NGOs, local partners, and beneficiary populations.

Initiated more than 50 years ago, the theorisation and implementation of quality processes concern today nearly all organisations that produce goods or services, as well as, since shortly, humanitarian NGOs.

But, contrarily to other activity sectors or to development NGOs, the concern to measure actions' impact, and to carry out evaluations that help re-orientate programmes to improve their quality, is relatively recent in the humanitarian sector. The most important events relating to the quality of humanitarian interventions, in the last ten years, are presented below:

• 1992 : Evaluation in Somalia requested by the Dutch government

Creation of ECHO, which includes evaluations in its requested procedures

• 1994 : Multi-donor evaluation in Rwanda. This leads to 11 recommendations, of which only 2 are related to humanitarian action. The 9 others focus on the work environment, and notably the role of politics and of the United Nations, prevention strategies, etc.
• 1995 : Red Cross/NGO Code of Conduct for disaster situations

Seminar on evaluation organised by MSF Holland

• 1996 : Emergence of a sector on "humanitarian evaluation"
• 1997 : Emergence of the SPHERE Project: "The Humanitarian Charter and Universal Minimum Standards"
• 1998 : Start of the Ombudsman Project: "the Control of the application of SPHERE"

Alternative mobilisation of French and Latin NGOs

Emergence of the international network on humanitarian evaluation: ALNAP

Creation of an evaluation unit in the ICRC

• 1999 : SPHERE multiplies its lobby actions, training sessions and publications

ETIKUMA seminar in Lyon, which brings together the French government, VOICE, and NGOs on the debate on codes of conduct and minimum standards.

Multiplication of field evaluations

• 2000 : Emergence of the Quality Platform (32 signatories) and of the Quality Project
• 2001 : Year 0 of the Quality Project

Start of the Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP), successor of the Ombudsman Project

The Hague Conference: "Being good at doing good", the 4 approaches to quality

ALNAP conference in Washington: change of approach; less focus on standards, and more on the term "quality"

Launch of the evaluation of SPHERE, with terms of reference taking into consideration issues of gender, environment, etc.

Meeting of ECHO partners and creation of a Quality Group with ECHO

• 2002 : Start of Year 1 of the Quality Project

The need to implement quality processes in the humanitarian sector carries implications, at different levels, which are important to recall.

The issues at stake are found to be essentially:

• The reassertion of humanitarian NGOs' identity. It is found that "outsiders" (donors, beneficiaries, other humanitarian actors, and the wider public) do not understand fully what are NGOs and what they do. This observation is in line with that made by development NGOs, notably the GRET (see Box 1). It thus appears that humanitarian NGOs must clarify their profession and objectives, as well as their specificities. This aspect is particularly important given that, increasingly, new actors are getting involved in humanitarian activities, and there is a problem of recognition and validation of roles.

• Political positioning. It is important to reinforce the cohesion within the group of partners, in order to maintain the legitimacy of NGOs' voice, and to carry weight in the important debates, with regards to NGOs themselves but also to external actors, in particular the donors. The partners are keen to be seen as standing collectively on certain issues.

• Co-ordination between humanitarian NGOs, but also between international aid NGOs as a whole, to increase the sustainability of actions by making the link between emergency and development.

Many participants expressed their concern for the efficiency (to reach one's objectives) and effectiveness (cost vs. results aspect) of actions. They emphasised the need to improve the methods and develop adapted tools (still little developed in the humanitarian sector for assessments, evaluations, and impact studies) in order to master and manage the complexity of situations they meet in the field. This aspect is important since most NGOs are specialised in specific areas (health, shelter, food security, water and sanitation, etc.) whereas the needs in the field are rarely specific to one field only. One of the implications of this debate for NGOs is the need to equip themselves with adapted tools to determine where they can act in the global management of situations (by trying to intervene in areas which are not theirs) and when it is necessary to call upon another specialist.

The participants emphasised the importance of moral and ethical values, the respect of which must be ensured with all involved entities (the actors of violence, local authorities, partners, beneficiaries, donors, etc.) during the implementation of humanitarian interventions. The essential elements here are: the dignity of beneficiaries; the responsibility of actors and the necessity to be accountable; honesty proven through work; the respect of commitments; the permanent search for a better quality of work; and the assurance of not producing negative effects on the beneficiary populations through humanitarian actions.

 

The needs for transparency in humanitarian NGOs were identified at the internal level, as well as with regards to outside actors and to the beneficiaries or population in need. It is therefore important for humanitarian NGOs to :

• On one hand, clarify their internal management (in terms of financial and human resources), their methods, the processes by which they define their objectives, and the impact of their actions.

• On the other hand, communicate externally through the development of communication, training and value-sharing tools.

This transparency would avoid numerous, more or less founded, criticisms, which are formulated about humanitarian NGOs, and would guarantee them a certain freedom of action.

The implications presented above are similar to those that led to quality processes in other sectors, such as the example about hospital environments shows in Figure 4, below.

This figure shows that, save a few details, the issues surrounding quality in numerous sectors are also found in the humanitarian sector. Whether it be at the level of moral values and professional ethics, in the financial, technical, or economic sectors, or at the level of internal and external management, humanitarian actors can no longer avoid the debate on pretext of "wanting to do good". A seminar in The Hague, at the end of 2001 was entitled "Being good at doing good", which shows, if needed, how topical the subject is. It emphasises the importance for NGOs to take a lead, by defining themselves the issues at stake in the debate on quality, and by developing its methods. In fact, if NGOs are not seen as having rigorous quality requirements themselves, outside actors will impose on them rules and tools, which would most probably not be adapted.

The issues at stake identified above had already been perceived, at various degrees, by each partner NGO before the common discussion. They have therefore taken individual initiatives towards the improvement of the quality of their action.

During the year 0 of the Quality Project, a number of studies were done in order to build a database of the existing work, initiatives, processes, tools, etc. that contribute to the improvement of humanitarian interventions. The achieved work provided a snapshot of the various "quality concerns" and of the different "perceptions of quality" among the partner NGOs.

The snapshot of the various preoccupations shows that these are many and very diverse. They are never exhaustive for one NGO, but correspond to differences in each NGO's priorities (recruitment policy, training strategy, etc.). They are capitalisable and adaptable by other NGOs.

The perceptions of a programme's quality are variable according to each organisation and according to individuals within a same organisation. While they remain divided by sector for smaller NGOs employing few permanent staff, they are part of a more global vision for bigger NGOs employing more permanent staff.

The discussions on the improvement of quality take place in all NGOs, but with different objectives, which change considerably their orientation. According to the objectives, the discussion can focus on donors (credibility), on other NGOs (to have a bigger role in the sector), or on beneficiaries (responsibility).

The concerns about the quality of actions, and the discussions that go with them, have led to the implementation of processes, tools, etc. Some are already in place, while others are at the planning stage. The following table presents the actual state of these processes.

It seems, from the above, that quality initiatives of partner NGOs still remain very individual. The measures already in place involve the technical, human resources and financial management areas. Tools for quality in these areas already exist in other activity sectors, and their adaptation to NGOs is relatively simple. The area in which tools adapted to the field still need to be developed (assessments, evaluation and impact studies -the part in the circle in the table above) represents most accurately the specificities of humanitarian NGOs; the development of tools needed in this area is most difficult and complex. This is where a crucial issue lies for the Quality Project, as it should respond to this lack of tools.

The seminar participants collectively identified essential elements which could define the concept of quality for humanitarian interventions. This work led to the construction of the "flower" presented in Figure 5 below.

This definition places the beneficiary (the victim) at the heart of its environment (political, economic, cultural and social). According to the results of this collective work, a humanitarian intervention will be of good quality if it is: opportune, efficient, effective, ethical, explained, accessible, continuous, safe, and evaluated. This flower reflects the present state of the discussion on quality of humanitarian action. It will obviously evolve and be enriched with the results of the work carried out in the field through the Quality Project.

Having shown the necessity to implement quality processes in the humanitarian landscape, having specified the implications of this project, and having established the situation of quality processes in humanitarian NGOs, the Quality Project will now be presented in the following section.

The Project Quality is structured around the following 7 key points:

1. General principles
2. Objectives
3. Method
4. Budget and resources
5. Action Plan for 2002
6. Steering Committee
7. Partners

The process is founded on five principles :

• The Quality Project is an inter-organisational project;
• It takes into consideration the complexity and volatility of situations as well as the interactions between the various actors;
• It is resolutely based on an experimental approach: Hypothesisà testà tool;
• It is centred on field problems/issues
• It is based on the assumption that the quality of humanitarian action is ultimately measured through the resilience of populations (link between emergency-rehabilitation-development)

To improve the quality of humanitarian interventions by working on the processes that determine it.

1. To develop improved assessment tools and methods, as well as tools to assist in decision-making, for humanitarian interventions, in particular in unstable contexts;

1. To develop improved monitoring and evaluation tools / methods for humanitarian actions and interventions in unstable contexts, which would also help build the institutional memory and make our structures real "learning organisations";

 

2. To promote and disseminate these tools through training sessions, both in academic programmes and in NGOs' internal training programmes, upon demand.

The Quality Project is faced with the problem of how to help its partners "create Quality". To do this, there are essentially two ways of proceeding:

We can try to create Quality:

• through standard responses (type of approach used by SPHERE)
• through questioning processes.

The method deemed the most appropriate for the Quality Project is that based on a questioning process.

The choice of this method is justified:

• on one hand, by the analysis of existing quality practices in other sectors
• on the other hand, by several experiences and studies carried out in the field during the Quality Project's pilot year, that led to the identification, analysis and comprehension of problems related to the smooth running of projects.

These elements point to the fundamental role of raising the right questions at critical points of an intervention, in particular during the assessment and project elaboration phases. The success of interventions indeed depends strongly on the questions that were asked from the start, as the answers to these questions are the basis for the conception of the programmes. A few examples of the reconstruction in Central America illustrate this fact (see Box 2).

Furthermore, it was shown that in any process, there are "sensitive" stages, where any mistake is detrimental to the outcome of the whole process. At these critical stages, there are several ways (good or not so good) of carrying out the given task. The probability is high that the task will be carried out inappropriately unless it is done with particular care (Murphy's law).

On the whole, the method chosen and developed by the Quality Project is based on questioning. To better respond to the needs of the field, it is necessary to provide assistance in the assessment and evaluation phases in the form of a grid of pertinent and "unavoidable" questions. In order to elaborate this grid of questions, the "critical points" must first be determined; these are the traps on which an intervention can stumble, unless the pertinent questions are asked.

T0 in Figure 7 is a fundamental point for a humanitarian intervention. The time available to take a decision is indeed extremely limited. It is not rare that, for lack of a careful analysis of the situation, the proposed intervention is a complete failure. Through concrete examples, the seminar participants emphasised the importance of having baseline information at T0. They deplored the absence of a reliable information system or structure at this stage. In other words, who should NGOs trust to obtain "good" information to take the "right" decision? Much is expected from the Quality Project to make decision-making tools available for NGOs, to help them in this important stage.

The heart of this approach is the crossing of sectoral questions with transversal issues. 

4.3.2. The different phases of the method

The project is composed of several phases:

1. Literature/method review: during this phase, existing tools, notably those developed by development actors, will be systematically analysed, with the objective of seeing what is "usable after adaptation". The same approach will be used for existing quality processes so as to extract elements that can inspire us.

 

2. Elaboration, in partnership with humanitarian actors, of the list of critical points, and of the grid of questions. This first stage will be done through operational research, with evaluation missions in the field. Each exercise in the field (iterative evaluations with mini-seminars) will be the opportunity for workshops, in the field and at headquarter level, in order to build the prototype of the questioning tool.

Different types of crises will be analysed, in order to take into consideration the diversity of situations (acute crisis, chronic crisis, end of crisis), and the technical analyses (health, shelter, food and economic security…) will be systematically crossed with transversal issues (protection, emergency-development link, co-ordination, participation…).

 

3. After this first step in the tool construction, a test phase will be launched, in order to finalise the proposed quality method.

 

4. After these tests, and after potential corrections are made, the dissemination stage will be launched.

In parallel to this work, and according to the wish of the seminar participants, the critical analysis of existing assessment, conception and evaluation tools from the development of private sectors will be pursued in greater depth. This work will aim to extract the elements that can be adaptable to humanitarian interventions and the points that need to be worked on to make them efficient tools in emergency situations. This activity was integrated in the Quality Project's action plan for 2002, which is developed below. Furthermore, it is also important to set up a surveillance system (to formalise and make the information available) on the different dynamics which are emerging around the issue of quality (SPHERE Project, IRC and ICRC approaches, etc.). The partners should then reflect on the possibilities of collaborating with other actors working on quality.

4.3.3. Expected results of the Quality Project

The method presented above should lead to the elaboration of a Quality method adapted to humanitarian actors, in the specific phases of an intervention, before, during and after. This method will include the preparation of a "tool box" (the grid of questions) and instructions to go with it, completed with documents and annexes.

In the short term (12 to 18 months), a prototype version to be tested with the partner NGOs will be written up and made available.

In the medium and long term (2 to 3 years), the first version of the quality method will be disseminated through publications, seminars, training of NGO and donor personnel. It will be continually tested and improved.

4.4.1. The budget

The estimated budget for the next two years amounts to 366.651 Euros, or 2.405.088 French Francs (see table 3 below). The funds received from ECHO, the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Project's partner NGOs (including Groupe URD) cover a large share of the budget, and make it possible to launch the Project. However, a remaining 51% of the budget are not yet funded for the next 2 years.

Potential funding opportunities are currently under negotiation with the Fondation de France, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Union and the FAO. The final funding agreements remain to be confirmed, and other contacts are currently being established.

Groupe URD had sought funding for the Quality Project in 2000, and then in 2001, from the Mission for Non-governmental Co-operation (MCNG) of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After having seen its hopes raised in the Steering Committee in November, during which many had understood the Project was accepted, the answer received in December 2001 was negative. The reason for the French MFA's refusal was not clear, since it changed from one government official to another, and for the same official, according to who was asking the question. Apparently, one of the reasons for this refusal would be that the MFA is not convinced that the Quality Project is a collective project. Another argument is that the Quality Project's main objective focuses on humanitarian interventions whereas the MCNG funds development operations.

The funding from the French MFA was important for the Quality Project, both in terms of the financial input and of the project's image (recognition at the national level of a project supported by a group of French NGOs). The project will be presented to the MFA, but this time by Coordination SUD -who obviously has an important role in the representation of French NGOs as an associated group. It will be submitted to the Humanitarian Delegation, a recently created body, which is more relevant to the Quality Project. Groupe URD, the operator of the Quality Project, will access the funds through a work convention with Coordination SUD (this convention already exists between Coordination SUD and Groupe URD; the issue will be to define the terms of reference for the Quality Project).

4.4.2. The Quality Project team

Groupe URD is the project operator; it organises the project's global architecture, co-ordinates the activities, and ensures the dissemination of the results. It has, for this purpose, put together a multi-disciplinary team of specialists (food security and food aid, shelter, public and hospital health, international law, logistics). The team is composed of:

• A director: François Grünewald (this could lead to his resignation as president of Groupe URD)
• a project manager working under the director, at the service of the group of partners: Hugues Maury
• a technical "project team" : Eric Levron, Claire Pirotte, Véronique de Geoffroy;
• the support of the Groupe URD team : Bonaventure Sokpoh for documentation and communication, and Magali Rodon for the administration and financial follow-up ;
• ad-hoc experts for specific missions
• student interns for specific complementary studies

The plan of action for the Quality Project in 2002 is summarised in figure 8 below. 

The seminar discussions emphasised the importance of formalising the analysis of tools used in the development and private sectors. This will be done in parallel with the points presented below, which had been planned initially. 

Main field  : Afghanistan : 3 missions between March 2002 and March 2003 with mini-seminars in Afghanistan and upon the mission's return 

Secondary fields: Central America: continuation of the capitalisation work

West Africa : launch of the first research activities in Guinea and Sierra Leone

Feedback workshops (in the field and upon the mission's return) : Using the "material" collected in the field, discussion and debate with partners

Objective of these workshops : determine together the "critical points" and the corresponding questions to be asked à grid of questions, by technical sector, and with discussion of transversal issues

• Newsletter : « Quarterly Quality Up-date »
• « Quality Project » web site design improved.
• Discussion forum

The Steering Committee has three roles: orientation, stimulation, and validation.

It is presently composed of:

• Alain Boinet (Solidarités)
• Thierry Mauricet (Première Urgence)
• Jean-Pierre Cabouat (French Red Cross)
• Jean-Claude Fages (Fondation de France)
• Nathalie Herlemont (Coordination SUD)
• Luciano Loiacono (Handicap International)
• Philippe Ryfman (DESS Coopération et Développement)

The above committee was obtained through the candidates spontaneously volunteering.

Today, in this seminar, it is decided that:

• The role of Coordination SUD is important in terms of the funding of the project and its political positioning ;

• The separation of the political aspects and the operational aspects, as well as the co-ordination of French NGOs on the issue of quality of humanitarian interventions, are also important.

This requires a redefinition and a structuring of the Quality Project's Steering Committee. It is therefore wished that the Steering Committee meets before the 15^th March 2002 in order to formulate a proposition on these issues.

The origin of the Quality Project dates back to when a group of French and international NGOs stood up against the process of standardisation of humanitarian aid, which was being initiated in 1998. Today, the Quality Project consortium brings together 12 NGOs. This consortium is supported by financial allies (donors), and technical allies (NGOs or organisations which are interested in the work done for the Quality Project and which sometimes get involved). Table 4 below presents the lists of organisations in each category of partnership.

The discussions around this table highlight:

• The advantage of keeping only two principal groups: a first restricted group which works on the development of tools (Groupe URD and partners involved in the research work), and a second, larger, group including the organisations which adhere politically to the process;

• the advantage of becoming closer to local communities in France -which are also humanitarian actors through decentralised co-operation- via Cités Unies France;

• the importance of studying the possibilities of involving other organisations which are also committed to processes similar to the Quality Project, such as the ICRC.

• The advantage of contacting organisations which are interested in the Quality Project's approach, but which are still hesitating to fully adhere to it, such as MSF-France.

The rich debates, discussions and exchanges that the various presentations provoked during the seminar have confirmed the need to collectively clarify the issues of the Quality Project before launching it.

The principal objectives of the seminar have been reached. The Quality Project is thus starting with:

• well-defined implications at the political, technical, economic, ethical levels, as well as in terms of transparency;

• a completed and validated method of work: it is essentially based on the elaboration of questioning processes, relevant to the critical points of a humanitarian intervention (they will be identified in the field: iterative evaluations with mini-seminars). The efforts will concentrate on assessments, evaluations, and institutional learning;

• a political orientation emphasising the collective approach, in which Coordination SUD plays an important and central role.

More work remains to be done on the elaboration of a small glossary on quality, for partner NGOs.

The results of the fieldwork will fuel the debates during the next feedback sessions, and will complete the foundations of the Quality Project.