Core humanitarian standard
- Page updated on18 de April de 2025
Among the globally accepted norms and standards for humanitarian action is the Core Humanitarian Standard. This framework establishes a series of commitments that should be common to any humanitarian organization, regardless of the nature of the activities it implements or its technical sector.
This people- and community-centered humanitarian standard illuminates a path that remains fraught with obstacles to improving equity, community participation, or accountability to populations affected by humanitarian emergencies.
Table of contents:
What is the Core Humanitarian Standard?
A standard for quality, responsibility and accountability in humanitarian action
The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS) is a globally recognized framework based on the humanitarian principles. It addresses how relationships should be between humanitarian actors and the communities they work with. To this end, the CHS sets out the 9 commitments that people and communities affected by humanitarian emergencies and in situations of crisis and vulnerability can expect from those who support them, in terms of quality and accountability.
The seed of the Core Humanitarian Standard was planted in 2003
The history of the Core Humanitarian Standard began in 2003, and is already part of the history of humanitarian action. That year saw the launch of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership, an initiative for self-regulation of humanitarian organizations. This proposal, driven by recent projects such as Sphere (more oriented today to technical standards), the Humanitarian Charter or ALNAP, gave rise to the promotion of accountability, responsibility and quality in humanitarian aid.
In 2015 this alliance merged with People in Aid to create the CHS Alliance and publish the Core Humanitarian Standard. This, in turn, was later accompanied by tools for implementation, such as the Quality & Accountability COMPASS Toolbox. In 2024, the Core Humanitarian Standard has been updated, reflecting changes in the way it refers to people and communities as active subjects, who not only know their rights but also exercise them.
The Core Humanitarian Standard includes nine commitments
The Standard, through nine commitments that humanitarian actors must adopt, establishes the guarantees that must be offered to the people and communities with whom they work, based on respect for humanitarian principles.
Commitment 1: People and communities can exercise their rights and participate in actions and decisions that affect them
This implies integrating considerations of diversity, equity, and inclusion for all people and, especially, for the most marginalized. It is also understood that for effective participation, there must first be effective information and communication, adapted to the local language and context. Participation cannot be improvised. It must be integrated into the approaches of the organizations, committed to the involvement of the community and its people in all actions and decisions. Finally, this commitment also refers to the rights of individuals, concerning respect for their dignity when their image is used for advocacy or fundraising, for example.
Related blog articles:
Commitment 2: People and communities access timely and effective support in accordance with their specific needs and priorities
The quality of programs and activities matters, throughout the entire project cycle. It is therefore essential that humanitarian context analyses not only focus on correctly assessing people's needs but also look at local capacities and strengths. Likewise, fair criteria should be used to determine which populations and actions are to be prioritized, ensuring special attention to the most marginalized groups and referring what cannot be addressed to other actors who can. During project implementation, actions should be monitored and adjusted continuously, to ensure their relevance, accessibility and that they also meet technical standards of quality.
Related blog articles:
Commitment 3: People and communities are better prepared and more resilient to potential crises
Humanitarian assistance should ideally not seek to respond only to the most immediate needs. It should also seek to strengthen the capacities and autonomy of affected communities in risk and crisis management. This requires supporting local leaders and efforts to overcome the crisis, as well as contributing to empowering local humanitarian organizations. In addition, and from a perspective that respects the humanitarian-development-peace nexus approach, humanitarian programs should also aim to have a long-term positive impact on society, its livelihoods, and its economy.
Commitment 4: People and communities access support that does not cause harm to people or the environment
If appropriate measures are not taken, humanitarian actions can have unintended negative effects on communities or the environment. Organizations must therefore integrate a commitment to the safety, rights, and dignity of people into their approaches. This can be put into practice through secure and ethical data management and the implementation of abuse prevention and environmental impact reduction measures, for example.
Commitment 5: People and communities can safely report concerns and complaints and get them addressed
It is not enough to provide assistance in the form of essential goods or services. Accessible and appropriate mechanisms must also be established to enable the people participating in or receiving them to provide feedback. This enables them to complain if they believe that discriminatory treatment is taking place, for example, or to report abuses, if any. Complaints received should be handled ethically, with investigations and approaches that protect victims and survivors of exploitation, abuse, or harassment.
Commitment 6: People and communities access coordinated and complementary support
Humanitarian organizations cannot intervene in isolation. They must coordinate with other actors, especially with their counterparts, local partner organizations, and other existing community initiatives. This requires decision-making to be shared among these actors, respecting the roles and responsibilities of each partner, and ensuring that they all uphold technical standards and quality norms.
Commitment 7: People and communities access support that is continually adapted and improved based on feedback and learning
Improvement of interventions can only be ensured if organizations adopt a firm commitment to continuous learning and dialogue with communities. Again, it is not enough to implement theoretically relevant activities or follow recommended guidelines and protocols. A dialogue with the community and a listening and responsive attitude must be established to understand what works and what should work better, from the perspective of the affected people. This dialogue should also take place when analyzing the information obtained and proposing changes to the interventions.
Commitment 8. People and communities interact with staff and volunteers that are respectful, competent, and well-managed
Sometimes more emphasis is placed on introducing changes and improvements in policies and procedures than on their effective application, which is much more complex and difficult to guarantee. This requires establishing standards and codes of conduct that prevent and prohibit any type of abuse, harassment, exploitation or discrimination, but also generating an organizational culture that makes change possible. This necessarily starts with respect for the rights of humanitarian workers and the creation of a safe and inclusive work environment.
Commitment 9. People and communities can expect that resources are managed ethically and responsibly
This commitment refers both to financial resources and to material, human and environmental resources. Humanitarian organizations must ensure efficient, effective, and ethical management of scarce resources available in humanitarian contexts, minimizing and avoiding waste and misuse. This requires careful application of anti-corruption measures and mechanisms to avoid fraud, conflicts of interest, and the potential misappropriation of assets and funds. Likewise, different available alternatives should be assessed to choose those that minimize environmental impact.
Much remains to be done to improve participation and accountability
Despite the great strides the system has made in terms of standards for community participation and accountability, this has not always translated into standard practice. The power imbalance between humanitarian organizations and the crisis-affected populations they assist is still prevalent.
Sometimes there is more emphasis on ensuring that project language includes key terms, on giving the impression that there is a high level of accountability, and on documenting the conduct of participatory processes, than on achieving a certain level of empowerment that makes humanitarian responses fairer and more effective. Although almost all humanitarian organizations now have mechanisms for collecting feedback and complaints from the people assisted (something that was unthinkable only a few years ago), this still seems to have little influence on how certain strategic decisions are made, or on changing the attitude of the organization and its staff towards the public.
Many assisted people continue to perceive that they lack the legitimacy or the backing of the humanitarian system to demand fair and quality assistance, or to claim their right to have information, to be consulted, and to have their voice heard and taken into account at all stages of the humanitarian program cycle.
Standards and principles
External links
- CHS Alliance, Sphere, Groupe URD, 2024. Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability.
- ALNAP, 2023. From Tick Box to Turning Point: Getting Accountability Right for Improved Humanitarian Action.
- IASC, 2023. IASC Collective Accountability to Affected People (AAP) Framework.
- Nepal, 2023. Navigating dilemmas in people-centric humanitarian action.
English 
Español