Accountability for humanitarians
Accountability - a general definition
Accountability – generally – is the responsible use of power. It means that people can participate in decisions that affect them, 'have a say' in decision-making processes and complain when a decision is made poorly or has unexpected and unwelcome consequences.
Common applications of accountability
Discussions about accountability are familiar from domestic politics. It is common to hear that citizens should elect governments and that essential service providers (such as hospitals, banks, electricity companies) should deliver quality and affordable services to clients. Ideas about accountability and governance are even surfacing in transnational business regulation.
Accountability in conflicts and disasters
Accountability in humanitarian situations means that the power to help in situations of conflict and disaster is exercised responsibly. When implemented, it means that survivors of war or disaster are able to influence decisions about the help they receive and can complain if they feel the “helping power” was not exercised well.
The importance of humanitarian accountability
The special features of humanitarian work makes accountability particularly important:
Acute needs
People who have survived conflict or a natural disaster often have acute needs. Frequently, they have been displaced from their homes and lack their usual economic, social or psychological support systems.
Lack of choice, lack of competition
Normally, recipients of humanitarian aid cannot 'choose' between relief providers. So they cannot signal they are unhappy with a service by going to another provider, like consumers in competitive retail markets.
Lack of voice
Disaster survivors usually lack access to formal procedures for participating in decisions about assistance. Traditional governance structures are likely to be extremely strained by the disaster or conflict, if they have survived at all, and (until recently) relief agencies did not include participation and complaints systems in their programs.
Donor-survivor disconnect
Moreover, the people whose choices do influence relief agencies – donor governments and their citizens – are not consumers of humanitarian aid. Therefore, they may not be in as good as position as survivors to judge whether the aid was helpful.
Life and death decisions
Finally, in humanitarian situations, the consequences of decisions can be particularly severe. For example, a person’s decision to queue in a food distribution (rather than forage or seek help through private networks) may be a gamble with life or death, if the agency has underestimated the amount of food needed to go around.
