Both these terms are awash in technical definitions. According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, quality refers to the merit or worth of an activity or intervention or its compliance with a given standard (OECD DAC 2002).

Accountability typically refers to the obligation to act according to clearly defined standards and expectations (Government of Canada, International Federation) or the obligation to demonstrate that work has been conducted in compliance with agreed upon rules and standards (OECD/DAC 2002).

So, quality and accountability is about performing to or above existing standards (or even creating new standards) and consistently communicating performance to various stakeholders – partners, donors, affected populations and the public.

As noted in a recent Humanitarian Network Paper on accountability, quality and accountability initiatives in humanitarian response generally fall under three categories (1):

Since the beginning of its tsunami response, the International Federation has endeavored to strengthen and improve its quality and accountability efforts by supporting or driving a number of initiatives.

The Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS) has been one such initiative to address both the quality and accountability of collective tsunami recovery efforts.

TRIAMS is a common analytical framework designed to assist governments, aid agencies and affected populations to assess and monitor the rate and direction of tsunami recovery. The system aims to match results of the recovery operation (for example, number of houses built in an area) with ongoing needs assessments to ensure that operations are addressing real time needs, rather than outdated assessments. It also endeavors to use information that is disaggregated to the lowest level possible so that it captures the greatest level of detail, allowing for comparisons across villages and sub-districts, including those not directly affected by the disaster.

Conceptualized in 2005 by the International Federation and the World Health Organization (WHO), it also attempts to combine a results-based approach using common indicators (for example, percentage of population with access to water from an improved source) with beneficiary perspectives, and promotes other qualitative methods (such as focus group discussions) to allow for appropriate contextual analysis.

The TRIAMS framework is beginning to address considerable gaps in the analytical approaches of UN and other humanitarian actors in recovery.

Figure 1: Illustration of changing housing needs over time in Aceh Province, Indonesia

Analysis conducted in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Maldives has demonstrated how existing data can be mapped against current needs assessments to detect significant progress and sometimes, over-commitments as well as large gaps in recovery work.

For example figure 1 shows how housing needs in Aceh have changed significantly since May 2005.

If organizations are basing their response on needs assessments conducted in May 2005 or even earlier, the needs of considerable portions of the population will not be addressed. The value of the TRIAMS approach is therefore clearly evident.

Now in its second full year, more work needs to be done if TRIAMS is to become truly operational and provide decision-makers with useful information to inform on-going recovery efforts. Resources need to be mobilized and affected country governments, particularly at the local district and sub-district level, need to be supported to both analyze and utilize the data that can be produced.

What needs to be done?

For more information, see http://www.ifrc.org/docs/pubs/disasters/triams-bangkok-en.pdf. By mid June 2007 an updated report on TRIAMS will be available, highlighting successes and challenges of year one and on participants recommendations to embrace new indicators including disaster risk-reduction.

The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) is an independent learning and accountability initiative that was established in February 2005 in the immediate wake of the tsunami. Its primary aim is to improve the quality of humanitarian action by capturing the lessons from the international response to the tsunami.

TEC is supported by more than 70 agencies and is managed by a ten-member core management group of which the International Federation is a member. In 2006, the TEC produced five thematic evaluations and two synthesis reports, summarizing in detail the successes and challenges of the tsunami response. Four main findings and over 200 sub-recommendations were noted in the initial synthesis report.

TEC members continue to disseminate findings to various actors and more importantly are beginning to benchmark utilization of the recommendations. This work is expected to continue well into 2008 with milestone events planned whereby agencies, international organizations, bilaterals, NGOs and others will note how they have adopted the recommendations of the TEC. Additionally, one further TEC study, led by Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) will be carried out later in 2007 on linking relief to recovery to development (LRRD 2) and offers an important opportunity for local actors to articulate progress in these areas.

What needs to be done?

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (the Federation Secretariat and Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies involved in the operation) is publishing twice-yearly Federation-wide progress reports based on common programmatic and financial frameworks. The first of these reports was published to mark the 24 month commemoration of the tsunami, and reflects the operational contributions of more than 30 member National Societies with collective financial resources of CHF 2.85 billion. The reports include both programmatic and financial data, as well as narrative accounts of the successes and challenges of the ongoing operation.

These reports represent the first time that the entire efforts of the International Federation, including its member National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, are being systematically captured.

The approach uses common, low-level indicators (mostly outputs, but some outcomes) based on the approaches and interventions held in common by societies supporting operations in India, Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand. It is also based on the capacities held in common across this diverse group of members.

The approach uses common, low-level indicators (mostly outputs, but some outcomes) based on the approaches and interventions held in common by societies supporting operations in India, Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand. It is also based on the capacities held in common across this diverse group of members.

What needs to be done?

A performance accountability framework (PAF) is a framework or system articulating how performance in implementing strategies, programmes or projects will be measured and communicated; it also articulates the standards to which the agency will hold themselves accountable (e.g. Code of Conduct, Red Cross Red Crescent Principles, Sphere etc).

Although by no means a new tool, many National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies active in the tsunami-affected countries have updated or develop new performance accountability frameworks that reflect the depth and complexity of their tsunami recovery efforts. Key or common elements are summarized in the box to the right.

Australian Red Cross, supported by the International Federation, recently brought together over 40 key staff supporting operations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Maldives to develop their own PAF.

Key components included operationalizing standards important to governance, as well as identifying those of concern to field teams. Teams also worked hard to develop key performance indicators and begin to develop evaluation strategies to enable objective examinations of important issues such as equity and sustainability. Similar efforts were also recently undertaken by the American Red Cross Tsunami Recovery Programme.

What needs to be done?

Significant efforts are underway both within the International Federation and the wider humanitarian sector to strengthen quality and accountability practices in the wake of the tsunami. However, these efforts must continue if they are to become a normal activity within disaster response and recovery efforts. Actors must ensure that their plans are based on solid evidence, and that they are able to track, record and communicate the results of their efforts as well as on-going needs. In doing so, the International Federation and the wider humanitarian community will truly be able to demonstrate the difference it makes.