1. Home
  2. Global

Then and Now: 25 years of aid accountability

As the UN introduces yet another initiative, a timeline of efforts to give more say to affected people.

(Lindsay Bremner/Flickr)

Related articles

See more related stories

People receiving emergency aid have little say over the kind of assistance offered and who provides it, nor do they have much opportunity to complain about it.

Over the years, numerous aid initiatives have attempted to close this accountability gap for affected people in humanitarian crises – providing them with information, but also listening to their feedback and including them in decisions that affect their lives.

The concept is now a staple of every major humanitarian reform process. Evaluations repeatedly show that aid efforts that include affected people are not just better on principle, but result in higher quality and more relevant aid programmes.

Last week, outgoing UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock proposed an independent commission to respond to the views of crisis-affected people and hold the aid system to account to those it aims to serve. The suggestion may have been billed as something new, but it’s far from the first time humanitarians have recognised the need to listen to affected people.

Mechanisms and channels for receiving feedback – be they hotlines, complaints boxes or SMS surveys – abound when it comes to delivering aid these days. But critics say they too often amount to “window-dressing”: They may be professionalising the mechanics of gathering comments, but are they really influencing top-down decision-making processes?

Once defined as “the responsible use of power”, accountability still skews heavily towards those who pay. While aid agencies have to be answerable to donors, they rarely are – at least in any meaningful way – to their end clients: the so-called “beneficiaries” of their services.

But momentum for change is building, and this timeline charts the progress of initiatives both on the ground and in policy spheres to put “people at the centre of aid” – one of several slogans in the ever-changing terminology. We also track the limitations of accountability efforts, which to some, appear to have achieved “rhetorical rather than real results”.

Hannah Stoddard contributed to research and reporting.

Share this article

Right now, we’re working with contributors on the ground in Ukraine and in neighbouring countries to tell the stories of people enduring and responding to a rapidly evolving humanitarian crisis.

We’re documenting the threats to humanitarian response in the country and providing a platform for those bearing the brunt of the invasion. Our goal is to bring you the truth at a time when disinformation is rampant. 

But while much of the world’s focus may be on Ukraine, we are continuing our reporting on myriad other humanitarian disasters – from Haiti to the Sahel to Afghanistan to Myanmar. We’ve been covering humanitarian crises for more than 25 years, and our journalism has always been free, accessible for all, and – most importantly – balanced. 

You can support our journalism from just $5 a month, and every contribution will go towards our mission. 

Support The New Humanitarian today.

Become a member of The New Humanitarian

Support our journalism and become more involved in our community. Help us deliver informative, accessible, independent journalism that you can trust and provides accountability to the millions of people affected by crises worldwide.

Join