Christopher Black/ International Federation, Guinea 2001

Chapter 7 - summary
Accountability: a question of rights and duties

Why is accountability important? Put simply: humanitarian actors exercise real power over crisis-affected people. Power to decide who receives aid and who does not; what will be given, when and where. Power to determine where people must go and when, what they will eat, what clothes and shelter they will have.

As early as 1983, a disaster expert argued that: “Without accountability, programmes inevitably become paternalistic in nature or end up serving the needs of the donors and the agencies rather than the needs of the victims.” In 1994, the wide-scale clinical mismanagement of cholera by inexperienced relief workers among Rwandan refugees increased calls for stronger accountability. In early 2002, disturbing reports emerged of agency staff in west Africa abusing their power by demanding sex in return for aid.

Evaluators have consistently highlighted problems encountered in humanitarian operations, such as lack of professionalism; poor management; problematic funding policies and practices; absence of coordination; lack of humanitarian access; and military targeting of civilian populations and relief workers.

Addressing these problems involves defining responsibilities and focusing on accountability, as both a pre-eminent humanitarian principle and an institutionalized practice. Building a culture and practice of accountability requires acknowledging that with power comes responsibility, and that humanitarian action is not about logistics, but about individuals – with rights.

Accountability requires individuals, organizations and states to implement two interdependent principles: to account for actions (and inactions) and be held responsible for them; and to be able to safely report complaints and seek redress. It shares common features with quality assurance, such as monitoring impacts, organizational leadership and stakeholder satisfaction. However, accountability differs in its focus on the responsibilities of duty-bearers and the rights of affected populations.

Initiatives since the mid-1990s to improve the quality of humanitarian aid have included the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response (Code of Conduct) and the Sphere project’s Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards. These initiatives aim to adopt a rights- rather than needs-based approach that focuses on the responsibilities of humanitarian actors.

All those working in humanitarian relief, from governments and armed forces to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups, should be accountable to crisis-affected populations. Different actors have different responsibilities. States and armed groups are obliged to respect humanitarian standards defined by the Geneva Conventions and to prevent their violation. Equally, states are obliged to secure universal observance of the rights to food, clothing, housing and health.

Where states cannot assist crisis-affected populations, they have an obligation to seek assistance from others – and therefore to allow access for humanitarian purposes, whether in conflict or non-conflict situations. Despite the consistency of international law in promoting access, the practice is sadly different. Governments and armed groups too often violate this principle, in the name of “national sovereignty” or war efforts. And humanitarian workers are often the deliberate targets of intimidation or killings.

Non-state actors are also accountable for their actions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls on “every individual and every organ of society” to play their part in securing universal observance of human rights. The Geneva Conventions detail the rights and obligations of any personnel participating in relief. The development of the Code of Conduct, Sphere’s Humanitarian Charter and other professional standards indicates the commitment of humanitarian actors to define their roles in terms of human rights and responsibilities.

Aid guidelines and standards have mushroomed recently, establishing general principles, sectoral benchmarks and interagency codes. Does this thwart attempts to offer a single baseline against which to assess humanitarian operations? No. Firstly, these codes offer a practical framework of reference for a range of different contexts. Secondly, after consistent monitoring, only those codes that emerge as relevant will be adopted.

But the quality of aid is threatened by lack of monitoring and indicators to measure compliance. The results of monitoring must be made public and lead to tangible outcomes. Otherwise standards will remain no more than paper tigers.

Accountability at field level means ensuring that crisis-affected people are involved in the decisions that affect them. They have their own ways of coping, so it’s essential to include them in aid planning. Failure to engage them in meaningful dialogue about their needs and capacities can prove frustrating and even dangerous. Yet many consultation exercises simply extract information rather than promote dialogue.

While agencies may be experienced in listening to local people, some key questions need to be asked. Listening and consultation for what? Who asks the questions? What happens next? Working in more transparent and accountable ways means more than just listening.

A central principle of accountability is the ability to voice complaints. They may be frivolous or serious, but they are rarely taken up within aid organizations or governments. How can agencies better hear what people are concerned about? How can they tap the experience and creativity of those affected by disaster? And respond to what they hear? Three specific components to accountability are beyond doubt:

• Obligation to inform. Agencies must inform affected people about all aspects of aid operations and about their rights – through public meetings, mass media or information centres.
• Obligation to listen. Agencies must actively seek the views of affected people about their perceived concerns and priorities for improving aid delivery – through interviews, focus groups, social audits or a help-desk. Crucially, aid-providers must set up mechanisms, which provide individuals the opportunity to report complaints and seek redress.
• Obligations to respond and report back. Listening to crisis-affected people should stimulate changes in aid delivery. Agencies must assume responsibility for what they did well and for where they failed. To demonstrate that listening to beneficiaries has resulted in concrete changes, agencies must report back on their actions (and inactions) to communities, donors and other stakeholders. Reporting back completes the accountability circle of informing, listening and responding.

Building a culture of accountability never ends; it is not a tangible outcome but rather an ongoing process with benchmarks measuring its evolution. The challenge is to turn exceptional examples of accountability into regular, institutionalized practice.

Existing standards are not disseminated widely enough. Very few of them are evaluated, monitored or their non-implementation sanctioned. Lack of self-regulation diminishes the impact that these initiatives could have. Humanitarian actors must act together to build self-regulatory bodies, at national and international levels, which should: ensure beneficiary participation; ensure other stakeholders’ participation; be transparent; have the authority to monitor and enforce agreed rules; update rules; accredit or remove the endorsement of organizations; and include a right of appeal.

Only by being transparent in its undertakings and accountable to those whose lives it most affects, can humanitarian action truly meet its objective to safeguard and uphold the well-being and dignity of those who have been affected by disasters and armed conflicts.

Agnès Callamard and Koenraad Van Brabant, co-directors of the Humanitarian Accountability Project, were principal contributors to this chapter and box.