Choose a humanitarian reference for one coordination or planning question, record the current context and source, and name the local mechanism that must confirm it.
Editorial status: draft. Availability to read this page does not change its editorial status or establish external validation. The review scope and unverified items are stated on this page. A review date does not establish clinical, legal, security or field suitability. Check the publisher's current material and the requirements for your task.
State the crisis, place, affected group and decision you need to discuss. Examples include: "Which reference should frame our first multi-agency needs discussion?" or "What security questions must be assigned before staff travel?"
The publisher pages below were read on October 26, 2026. They do not identify the current country coordination structure, confirm field access or replace an organization's emergency and security procedures.
| Need | Publisher Starting Point | What the Current Page Offers | Check Before Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Locate technical and protection standards | Sphere Handbook | The 2018 handbook, online reading and current revision information | Confirm the current edition, relevant chapter, local requirements and responsible technical lead |
| Frame quality and accountability commitments | Core Humanitarian Standard | The 2024 standard's nine commitments, booklet and interactive handbook | Select the commitment relevant to the question and do not describe the organization as compliant without evidence |
| Understand coordinated needs assessment | OCHA Needs Assessments | An overview of coordinated assessment and links to related planning resources | Confirm the active local mechanism, current dataset, collection authority and information-responsibility controls |
| Set up basic security risk-management questions | GISF Security to Go | A fourth-edition modular toolkit for new contexts and programs | Use the current context analysis, security owner and emergency procedures; the guide is not exhaustive |
| Field | What to Record |
|---|---|
| Question | The coordination, quality, assessment or security issue |
| Context | Crisis, place, affected groups, date and known access limits |
| Selected reference | Publisher, exact title, URL, edition or date and section read |
| What it supports | One narrow point from the source |
| Local mechanism | Current authority, cluster, working group, community structure or organizational owner to confirm |
| Information risk | Sensitive data or protection issue and the permitted handling route |
| Decision still open | What cannot be decided from the reference |
| Recheck trigger | New assessment, access change, incident, coordination update or revised edition |
The fictional Riverbend Relief Network is invited to an initial flood-response meeting. Its coordinator reads the OCHA needs-assessment overview and records that coordinated assessment should support response planning. The note does not claim that a new survey is needed. It asks the current district coordination group what information already exists, which gaps are agreed and what data can be shared. The organization's security lead separately reviews travel and communications. The meeting note remains a planning aid, not an authorization to collect names or conduct field travel.
OpenAid's editorial owner maintains the four publisher links in the comparison above. Recheck when a publisher changes its page or edition, a reader reports a problem, or the question or operating context changes. Read the destination and its scope; a successful request alone does not establish that guidance is current or applicable.
A local automated check on October 26, 2026, received pages from CHS, OCHA and GISF. Sphere returned an access-blocking response to that check, so its automated status is unresolved rather than confirmed dead or healthy. The earlier content reading and the later HTTP observation are different checks. Use the publisher directly and report a persistent problem through Contact; the editorial owner must resolve access or choose a verified replacement before describing a link as checked.
Version 0.5 replaces the old catalog with a coordination-and-planning reference note and a fictional example. It removes the dedicated evaluation collection and does not imply field access, local authority, compliance or safety. Version 0.6 adds editorial link ownership and the separately recorded HTTP availability check; it does not renew the earlier edition or substantive review.
The coordination reference note above remains the starting method. For an urban-service or settlement-upgrading question, add the service boundary, affected residents, municipal owner, rights questions and relevant specialist role. A global overview can organize an inquiry; it cannot approve construction, confirm tenure or justify relocation.
| Starting Point | Read for This Purpose | Applicability and Access Limits |
|---|---|---|
| UN-Habitat: Urban Basic Services | Objective and Strategy connects infrastructure, institutions and equitable service provision across water, waste, mobility and energy | Undated overview with historical Millennium Development Goals language. Background only, not a current municipal plan, technical specification or legal rule. Direct HTTP text was available October 29, 2026 after the separate web reader received an access block. |
| UNHCR: Informal Settlements | Main Guidance sections 2-3 identifies resident consultation, land questions, municipal technical departments and cross-sector coordination in displacement settings | Last updated November 10, 2025 and explicitly marked outdated and under revision in the available publisher text. Relevant guidance was readable through indexed publisher text October 29, 2026; direct requests were access-blocked. Recheck the current entry and alternatives before operational use. This is not a current local upgrading manual. |
| Current municipal and utility documents | Applicable service plans, operator responsibilities, building/land permissions, technical requirements and current restrictions | No municipality is selected here. The responsible local public and technical roles must identify the exact current documents, jurisdiction, version and approval process. Do not invent a local authority or source. |
An NGO in fictional Eastbank wants to improve drainage beside a mixed host/displaced neighborhood. It uses UN-Habitat to widen the question beyond a single asset and UNHCR's limited entry to identify consultation and authority questions. It does not treat the latter's presence online as proof of current applicability.
Its source note reads: "Question: which responsible local roles and documents are needed before considering drainage work? Known: the channel crosses the proposed project boundary. Unknown: downstream effects, land authority, current municipal plan, technical requirements and residents' different access needs. Next: ask the municipal technical department and utility for their current documents, involve appropriate resident representation, and obtain qualified engineering and housing/land-rights advice where relevant. No design, upgrading or relocation decision is made."
If the global entry remains inaccessible or under revision, the editor records that limitation and seeks a verified authoritative alternative for the exact question. An old overview is not silently promoted into current operational guidance. If the question concerns urgent danger, use the responsible emergency and protection pathways, not an ordinary editorial link inquiry.
For the concepts behind this source choice, see settlements within wider systems, coverage versus reliable use and area versus household framing.
OpenAid's editorial owner maintains these two added publisher references under the maintenance process above. This October 29, 2026 addition supplies source-selection context only. It preserves the page's existing draft status and earlier review history and establishes no field validation, engineering approval or current local legal determination.
