CC.6.2 Country office meets or is on track to meet established standards for the integration and operationalization of humanitarian principles in its programming and operations

CC.6.2 Country office meets or is on track to meet established standards for the integration and operationalization of humanitarian principles in its programming and operations

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

CC.6.2

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-E

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority Area: Embedding humanitarian principles and conflict sensitivity

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is applicable at CSP level to all types of CSPs targeting direct and/or indirect beneficiaries.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Score - Country Office

Categories:

• Does not meet standard

• Partially meets standard

• Meets standard

• Exceeds standard

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the extent to which COs integrate and operationalize HPs within their operations. It is based on a self-assessment against established standards in three key areas: HP capacity strengthening, Context Analysis and Risk Assessment and migration measures.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

1. HP Capacity Strengthening – ensuring staff are aware of humanitarian principles and understand their implications within their respective roles;

2. Context Analysis and Risk Assessment – identifying risks related to the application of humanitarian principles in specific operational contexts;

3. Mitigation Measures – implementing appropriate mitigation actions, including the escalation of critical risks to the corporate level.

The Humanitarian Principles are:

• Humanity: WFP will seek to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it is found and respond with food aid when appropriate. It will provide assistance in ways that respect life, health and dignity.

• Neutrality: WFP will not take sides in a conflict and will not engage in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature. Aid will not be provided to active combatants.

• Impartiality: WFP’s assistance will be guided solely by need and will not discriminate in terms of ethnic origin, nationality, political opinion, gender, race or religion. In a country, assistance will be targeted to those most at risk from the consequences of food shortages, following a sound assessment that considers the different needs and vulnerabilities of women, men and children.

• Operational independence: WFP will provide assistance
  in a manner that is operationally independent of the political, economic, military or other objectives that any actor may hold with regard to areas where such assistance is being provided.

RATIONALE

Violence is not only driving global hunger but is also undermining WFP’s ability to reach affected people in a safe and principled way. The humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and operational independence are WFP’s highest guiding principles, providing the ethical framework for all programmes and operations, particularly in emergencies. Visible and consistent adherence to the humanitarian principles enables WFP to build trust, manage risks and ultimately, gain sustainable access to people in need. While adherence to the humanitarian principles may require trade-offs and flexible approaches depending on operating environments, it is essential to WFP’s work and will continue to guide WFP in all programmes and operations. Is therefore critical to monitor WFP progress in embedding HPs into all programmes and operations.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The CO should complete the self-assessed data collection tool (available below), and draw on a range of documented sources of conflict/context analysis and risks assessment, HP capacity strengthening, and mitigation measures. A range of data sources may be used for completing the self-assessed data collection tool:

• Conflict/context analysis and risks assessments relating to the HPs

• Other context assessments that have considered conflict/political dynamics

• Corporate risk registers

• Risk matrices included in proposals or as part of a risk assessment

• Meeting notes of regular meetings that discuss and manage dilemmas in the adherence to HPs

In some contexts, there may be discussions, decisions and changes made at the field level to programming / operations in which great contextually relevant analysis is conducted but decisions are not documented. This data will need to be captured through key informant interviews with field staff.

The data collection tool is a self-assessment including the following 3 standards and respective questions.

Standard 1: Staff are aware of humanitarian principles and understand their implications within their respective roles.

Q1: Have relevant CO programme staff members¹ familiarized themselves with resources on Humanitarian Principles available on WeLearn?

Standard 2: Risks related to the application of humanitarian principles in specific operational contexts have been analysed, through Context analysis or conflict sensitivity risks assessment (e.g. CACSRA, I-CARA etc.).

Q2: To what extent do the Context Analysis or Conflict Sensitivity Risk Assessments analyse challenges to the HPs?

Standard 3: Appropriate mitigation actions, including the escalation of critical risks to the corporate level, have been implemented.

Q3: Have you established mitigation measures effectively addressing the risks and challenges identified in your analysis?

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A- One data collection tool should be completed for the CO encompassing all key elements/categories of programme and operations. Thus, there is no sampling.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

Having completed the self-assessed guiding questions, with narrative responses to each question, the CO should use the narrative responses to score itself on the rubric below.

The completed rubric then provides the basis for the scoring:

0 = does not meet standard

1 = partially meets standard

2 = meets standard

3 = exceeds standard

The rubric for scoring appears below:

The CO should assign themselves an overall score based on the outcome of the self-assessment as follows:

• Does Not Meet Standard = CO has scored “0” on any one of the dimensions

• Partially Meets Standards = CO has scored “1” on all dimensions OR CO has scored “1” on one or more of the dimensions and “2” or “3” on all others.

• Meets Standard = CO has scored “2” on all of the dimensions

• Exceeds Standard = CO has scored “3” on at least one of the dimensions and “2” on all others.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Data is entered at CSP level. Disaggregation for data entry into COMET based on sub-activities is not mandatory but should be covered in the narrative of the exercise sheet. Data is entered as follows:

The CO reports on their overall status in COMET in the logframe by selecting one of these options based on their overall score:

• CO does not meet standards

• CO partially meets standards

• CO meets standards

• CO exceeds standards

Note: For the first reporting year they must input the first collected value as the baseline in COMET. No values should be entered for follow-up at this stage. Subsequent data collected in the following year will then be recorded as follow-up values in COMET.

Date Disaggregation: Indicator is reported at the CSP-level, disaggregation for data entry into COMET based on activity tags is not mandatory but should be covered in the narrative of the exercise sheet.

The key elements where disaggregation adds most value is to identify where gaps remain according to:

• Type of activity

• Location

• Elements of CO operations (procurement, staffing etc)

This will enable better identification of action points going forward.

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

3. A change in target, location and/or modality triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baselines remain fixed for the entire CSP period and are not recalculated annually, unless applicable above.

TARGET SETTING

Annual target:

CO to determine rate of progressive expansion of analysis, assessment and mitigation measure development across the entire programme and operations over the course of the CSP and explain the rationale. At minimum, a CO should aim to ‘Partially meet’ or ‘meet the standards’ of HPs at the design stage of CSP.

End of CSP targets should be set to be equal or greater than “Meets standards.”

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Annual data collection and entry of the final score into COMET by end of reporting year.

INTERPRETATION

N/A

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

N/A

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator should be collected and analysed in parallel to all applicable cross-cutting indicators.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

I-CARA

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The data could inform a wide range of decisions from CSP design to targeting to delivery to partnerships.

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

This is a process indicator focusing on risks analysis and identifying mitigation measures. It does not measure adherence to the HPs.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The WeLearn platform can be accessed here: WFP - WeLearn. WFP also has information on the humanitarian principles including online trainings, the PGM, guidance notes and a tool for principled decision-making which can be accessed on WFPgo here.