What is accountability?
In general terms, accountability means "responsibility for actions". HAP International defines accountability as "the responsible use of power". In a humanitarian context, this means that the power of agencies is exercised responsibly with regards to disaster-affected communities. When implemented effectively, accountability implies the fact that people affected by disasters or other crises can participate in decisions that affect their lives and can complain if they feel the help they receive is not adequate, if a decision is made poorly or has unexpected and unwelcome consequences. In humanitarian situations, accountability is crucial because of the urgent needs and the vulnerability of disaster-affected communities, the lack of choice between providers of relief and the fact that the consequences of aid delivery can be life or death.
Urgent needs
People who have survived conflicts or natural disasters often have urgent needs (food, shelter, health care, etc.). Frequently, they have been displaced from their homes and lack their usual economic, social or psychological support systems.
Lack of choice, lack of competition
In general, recipients of humanitarian aid cannot "choose" between relief providers. So they cannot signal if they are unhappy with a service by going to another provider, like consumers in competitive retail markets.
Lack of voice
People affected by disasters and other crises 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 programmes.
Donors-affected communities disconnect
In addition, the people whose choices do influence relief agencies – donor governments and their citizens – are not recipients of humanitarian aid. Therefore, they may not be in as good as position as affected communities to judge whether the aid was helpful or not.
Life and death decisions
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.
The value of accountability
Humanitarian programmes will be delivered more effectively, saving more lives and improving the quality of more people’s lives, if disaster-affected communities participate in all stages of the programme cycle.
The accountability of humanitarian agencies to disaster-affected communities helps to ensure that programmes meet their needs both in concept and execution and reduces the possibility of error, corruption and the need for complaint.
