January 2002 Insights Issue #39

Back to Insights #39

Reclaiming humanitarianism? The necessity of accountability

An uneasy relationship exists between aid and politics - in particular the politicisation and militarisation of humanitarian aid. Its most extreme form is the characterisation of military action as humanitarian as in NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999. Others include the blurring between military and humanitarian operations, the selective funding of humanitarian crises, or the use of humanitarian assistance as a conflict management tool.

Shouldn't civilian humanitarian actors reclaim ownership over humanitarianism, asks the Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP)? If the public, donors, or indeed crisis-affected populations remain unperturbed by politico-military actors taking over humanitarian actions, isn't there also a need to reshape a humanitarian sector which may have lost its raison d'être?

Why has humanitarian aid been co-opted by politics?

• The humanitarian sector has an ambiguous relationship with certain aspects of humanitarian work: media emphasis on heroic deeds, a speedy efficient response captures the imagination and purses, but does little to educate on humanitarian principles. How far is the aid sector's affirmation of humanitarian work based on ethics and accountability? How far can the public empathise with crisis-affected individuals?
• Codes and policies developed to enhance quality and accountability remain largely unknown by the general public, crisis-affected populations, or even relief workers. Systematic monitoring of humanitarian codes and practices has rarely taken place. Failure by UN agencies or NGOs to deliver appropriate services in an appropriate manner, is rarely criticised.
• Donor policies and strategies rarely acknowledge changes in practice geared towards greater accountability and look to the short term rather than longer-term initiatives of reconstruction
• Effective participatory mechanisms allowing individuals a say in the programmes, policies, and decisions affecting their lives do exist - Care's rights-based programming in Sierra Leone and the Danish Refugee Council's complaints bureau in Chechnya for example - but have yet to be mainstreamed.

The aid sector is actively seeking to overcome these hurdles. Individual organisations have their own guidelines, training, evaluations, and financial audits. The Red Cross Code of Conduct, the Interaction Protocol on Co-ordination, and the Ombudsman project are all examples of attempts to monitor quality and accountability. Such initiatives however, have led to a long standing debate on the pros and cons of regulation, a debate that has masked, rather than exposed, the issues at stake. They primarily sought to explore and operationalise humanitarian responsibility, rather than regulate the sector, yet are an essential first step towards defining humanitarian sector obligations and reshaping humanitarianism.

The way forward consists first and foremost in pursuing this process, involving a greater focus on accountability as a key humanitarian principle and as institutionalised practice. A system of humanitarian accountability needs to take into account the political, financial and organisational context of humanitarian actions. It must also be based on agreed principles, with a just approach to all aspects of humanitarian work, and be clear about the responsibilities of individuals, organisations and the sector as a whole.

Crucially, such a system should be built into sectoral, organisational and operational systems, through, for example:

• Insistence on good practice and self-regulation mechanisms, at inter-agency, organisational and field levels. Good self-regulatory mechanisms should ensure openness and accountability, public confidence, statement of values and standards of behaviour, beneficiary participation and mechanisms for monitoring and updating the scheme.
• Institutionalised mechanisms for informing, monitoring, responding, and reporting to crisis-affected populations.
• Stronger coordination between different accountability initiatives, highlighting their complementarity.
• Agreed standards or benchmarks within organisations and at inter-agency level.
• An acknowledgement that the sector is responsible for ensuring that its members meet a minimum of expectations and professional standards, through self-regulatory and independent bodies and mechanisms.

Agnès Callamard and Koenraad Van Braband
Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP)
Centre John Knox
27 Chemin des Crets-de-Pregny
Geneva
Switzerland

T +41 22 747 0089
acallamard@hapgeneva.org

See also
'Why Humanitarian Accountability? Contextual and Operational Factors', HAP Geneva, August 2001 (www.hapgeneva.org/);

'Humanitarian Accountability: Key Elements and Operational Framework', HAP Geneva, October 2001
(www.hapgeneva.org/)

'Mapping Accountability in Humanitarian Assistance', ALNAP Publication, Overseas Development Institute London, by Peter Raynard May 2000 (www.odi.org.uk/)

FREE Information Delivery services from ID21:

ID21 is enabled by the UK Government Department for International Development(www.dfid.gov.uk) and hosted by the Institute of Development Studies (www.ids.ac.uk/ids), at the University of Sussex, UK. Charitable Company No. 877338. ID21 is a oneworld.net (www.oneworld.org) partner and a mediachannel affiliate (www.mediachannel.org).

Right-to-Reply: