2013 Humanitarian Accountability Report Acronyms

Humanitarian Accountability HAP Partnership YEARS ABILITY ACCOUNT RESILIENCE VALUE QUALITY FOR MONEY RESILIENCE ACCOUNTABILITY VALUE FOR MONEY GOOD QUALITY GOOD GOVERNANCE GOVERNANCE DO NO HARM PEOPLE MANAGEMENT TRANSFORMATIVE AGENDA ORMATIVE DO NO HARM TRANSFREAL-TIME TION EV CERTIFICATION CERTIFICA AGENDAALUATIONS CONTINUAL SELF-REGULATION IMPROVEMENT TION CONTINUAL SELF-REGULA IMPROVEMENT REAL-TIME EVALUATIONS AFFECTED TION POPULA BENCHMARKING COORDINA TIONS COORDINATION PEER REVIEWS PEERBENCHMARKING REVIEWS RISK MANAGEMENT MONITORING & RISK MONIT EV ORING & EVALUATIONS ALUA MANAGEMENT TIONS GOOD PRACTICE SAFER PROGRAMMING 2013 Humanitarian accountability report acronyms AAP – Accountability to Affected Populations HRI – Humanitarian Response Index ALNAP – Active Learning Network for Accountability IAAWG – Inter-Agency Accountability Working Group and Performance IA-RTE – Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation IASC – Inter–Agency Standing Committee BSO – Building Safer Organizations IATI – International Aid Transparency Initiative CAAP – Commitments on Accountability to Affected Populations ICRC – International Committee of the Red Cross CBHA – Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies ICT – Information and Communications Technology CBO – Community-Based Organisation ICVA – International Council of Voluntary Agencies CDA – Collaborative for Development Action IDP – Internally Displaced Person CDAC – Communicating with Disaster-Affected INGO – International Non-Governmental Organisation Communities JEEAR – Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda CRM – Complaints and Response Mechanism CSO – Civil Society Organisation JSI – Joint Standards Initiative DARA – Development Assistance Research Associates MANGO – Management Accounting for Non-Governmental Organisations DEC – Disasters Emergency Committee M&E – Monitoring & Evaluation DFID – Department for International Development MSF – Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) DG ECHO – Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (formerly known as European NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation Community Humanitarian Office) OCHA – United Nations Office for the Coordination of DRC – Danish Refugee Council Humanitarian Affairs DRC – Democratic Republic of the Congo ODA – Official Development Assistance ECB Project – Emergency Capacity Building Project ODI – Overseas Development Institute ECHO FPA – ECHO Framework Partnership Agreement OFDA – Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance ELRHA – Enhanced Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance PIA – People In Aid FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization RTE – Real Time Evaluation FGD – Focus Group Discussion SCHR – Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response GHD – Good Humanitarian Donorship SRI – Self-Regulatory Initiative Groupe URD – Groupe Urgence Réhabilitation TEC – Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Développement UN – United Nations HAP – Humanitarian Accountability Partnership UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees HAR – Humanitarian Accountability Report UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund HC – Humanitarian Coordinator HCT – Humanitarian Country Team USAID – United States Agency for International Development HERR - Humanitarian Emergency Response Review VOICE – Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies HPG – Humanitarian Policy Group WASH – Water, Sanitation and Hygiene HHI – Harvard Humanitarian Initiative WFP – World Food Programme 1 Foreword Ten years ago, the humanitarian sector was just starting to acknowledge affected populations as a primary stakeholder, one which should be able to hold humanitarian actors to account. For quite some time then, while the word was extensively used in policy discourse, there was little agreement on what being accountable to crisis affected populations actually meant, only a sense that this was the “right thing to do”. Today, it seems unthinkable to plan and lead a humanitarian response without putting crisis affected populations at the heart of programming, demonstrating the great leaps that the sector has taken in a relatively short period of time. The 2013 Humanitarian Accountability Report, which offers an overview of the progress the humanitarian sector has made and the obstacles it has faced over the past 10 years, comes at an opportune time. Accountability is no longer just a fashionable term, there is now a shared understanding of what it takes to be accountable as detailed in the HAP Standard benchmarks or the IASC Commitments on Accountability to Affected Populations. From changes at policy level, to concrete actions taken in the field, this report documents this sector-wide shift. It also shows that being accountable to the people we aim to serve is not just the right thing to do, it is also the best way to ensure programmes are relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable. Can we then be satisfied with what we have achieved and consider this mission accomplished? Not quite. On the one hand, as this report also shows, practice is not yet on par with policy. On the other, being accountable is an ongoing task. It commits us to listen to the voices of our stakeholders and strive to ensure our actions are driven by needs as voiced by the people we aim to assist. Switzerland, as demonstrated by its support of HAP and other quality and accountability initiatives, strongly believes in the need to empower beneficiaries of humanitarian aid and actively include them in decision-making processes. We believe this to be the most responsible way to express our solidarity with crisis-affected populations, and an ongoing duty. The HAP Standard begins with a request to define commitments and an action plan, and concludes with learning and continual improvement. This report documents what has worked, but also outlines some of the shortcomings and obstacles that have prevented progress. It is now our responsibility to scale up best practice, remove the obstacles, and continue to deliver on our commitments to people affected by crises. Ambassador Manuel Bessler Vice-Director, Delegate for Humanitarian Aid and Head of the Swiss Humanitarian Aid Unit (SHA) Foreword contents 1. Have we lost tHe plot? revisiting tHe accountability debate 4 Background: how the accountability problem is understood 5 Origins of the debate 6 Humanitarianism and political action 8 The accountability relationship: defining responsibilities in the humanitarian sphere 10 Re-focusing on official accountability 12 Lessons from the development sector 14 Where does the accountability agenda go from here? 17 1.7 2.wh aereccountability does the accountability 10 agenda years go from in here? review: Has tHe balance oF power ShiFted? 18 Accountability: its origins in the sector 19 The policy landscape 20 Accountability in action 33 HAP Benchmark 1 34 HAP Benchmark 2 38 HAP Benchmark 3 42 HAP Benchmark 4 47 HAP Benchmark 5 51 HAP Benchmark 6 55 The next decade 58 3. counting on accountability: voices oF affected communities 60 Introduction 61 Purpose, methodology and limitations 62 Community perceptions on aid: Borena, Ethiopia 63 What next? 71 4. resources 72 Documents on quality and accountability you should read 73 Websites you should visit 85 Askele Wetango is about 70 years old and a beneficiary of HelpAge’s partner organisation - Mary Joy in Awassa, Ethiopia. Her daughter died of HIV leaving her with three grandchildren to support and she is photographed with them at her home in Awassa, Ethiopia in 2008 © Kate Holt / HelpAge International The elderly of Kyrgyzstan © Kate Holt / HelpAge International Have we lost tHe plot? 1 REVISITING THE accountability debate James darcy warns against the dangers of taking too narrow a view of humanitarian accountability, and of privileging voluntary over official accountability. 5 background How tHe accountability problem is understood1 Much has changed in the ten years for leading donors. These initiatives potentially distorted – understanding of since the Humanitarian Accountability provided a self-imposed framework the humanitarian accountability agenda. Partnership was established, of responsibility against which the including thinking about accountability actions and decisions of the bodies In this chapter, I would like to itself. The fundamental problem as it concerned might be judged; but question the way in which this appeared to those involved in HAP’s they left open the question of how agenda is framed. Not because foundation was the lack of attention organisations and donors were to the present agenda is in itself the given by humanitarian organisations to be held to account against their wrong one, but because it seems their accountability to aid recipients as commitments, particularly by aid to me to be radically incomplete in compared to ‘official’ stakeholders – recipients. The founders of HAP the way it is currently understood. donor governments and others. were concerned to plug this gap and Specifically, the accountability In 2003 the balance of accountability to define in tangible terms how it of humanitarian organisations to seemed to many aid practitioners was that organisations would hold those they seek to assist tends to to be wrong not only on moral themselves accountable to recipient be seen in narrow programmatic grounds but on practical grounds communities and treat them as the terms; and it tends to be considered too: humanitarians were failing to primary stakeholders in aid delivery. in isolation from the nexus of other learn the lessons from others

Load more