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.
It was The New Humanitarian’s investigation with the Thomson Reuters Foundation that uncovered sexual abuse by aid workers during the Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo and led the World Health Organization to launch an independent review and reform its practices.
This demonstrates the important impact that our journalism can have.
But this won’t be the last case of aid worker sex abuse. This also won’t be the last time the aid sector has to ask itself difficult questions about why justice for victims of sexual abuse and exploitation has been sorely lacking.
We’re already working on our next investigation, but reporting like this takes months, sometimes years, and can’t be done alone.
The support of our readers and donors helps keep our journalism free and accessible for all. Donations mean we can keep holding power in the aid sector accountable, and shine a light on similar abuses.