_{© phototechno / iStock / Getty Images Plus}

Twenty years ago, the aid sector was primarily focused on a project or programme being delivered to the targeted community on budget and in a timely and effective manner.

Since 2000 however, with the development of the first Sphere Handbook (PDF), accountability to affected populations has become an equally important focus of aid. The need for this new focus was heightened by the confused response to the Asian Tsunami in 2004, where the lack of accountability to affected people led to poor outcomes for many, despite exceptionally high levels of funding.

As an article on the international aid response to the Tsunami commented:

Why did the exceptional funding not lead to an exceptional response? … The international humanitarian community was trying to do the wrong thing: implement its own set of agendas rather than put the affected community in the driving seat.

This lack of local ownership leads to a dearth of accountability and quality in humanitarian response (Telford & Cosgrave, 2007).

This lack of engagement and accountability to affected people led to changes in the international aid sector as accountability to affected people became more important to donors and aid agencies.

Since 2018, there has been a renewed focus and commitment to tackle SEAH in the aid sector. Organisations need to be transparent and accessible in their work with affected populations, so that where harm is caused by staff, affected people should know how to hold the organisation to account.

Organisations are guided by quality and accountability initiatives, such as:

• The Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) that describe essential elements for principled, accountable and high-quality humanitarian action.
• The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), which includes 6 Core Principles that should form the basis of all codes of conduct and the Minimum Operating Standards.
• Sphere’s humanitarian charter and minimum standards, which provides an operational framework for accountability in humanitarian emergencies.

These quality and accountability initiatives seek to standardise interventions across organisations and should be included in organisations’ HR manuals, safeguarding policies, and strategies across all aspects of their work.

However, many believe there is still a lot of work to be done in the sector – see the example in the activity below.

If you want to learn more about accountability read the following resources:

• Core Humanitarian Standard CHS
• The essential linkages between Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) and Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) (PDF) The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
• The Sphere Handbook (PDF)

Accountability to whom?

Accountability in the aid sector has two dimensions: internal and external.

Internal accountability is how we and our organisation understand our roles and responsibilities and meet the standards of performance we set for ourselves. This involves clear job specifications for all members of the organisation (for staff, managers, implementing partners), regular training to update knowledge and skills, and performance evaluation to ensure we are meeting expectations and responsibilities.

Staff members at all levels of the organisation need to understand their rights and obligations linked to the creation and maintenance of safe and healthy workplaces and living environments (often known as a ‘safeguarding culture’). You will remember that it is everyone’s responsibility to provide a safe environment in our organisations by promoting a clear code of conduct, and managers have a particular responsibility to do this (refer to Principle 6, IASC PSEA 6 Core Principles).

External accountability includes our responsiveness to those we work with and for, to our donors and supporters, and to the public at large. In today’s social media world, organisations have to be nimble in responding to negative media stories that can very quickly damage their reputation and erode the trust of donors and the public.

Accountability to donors

Organisations who receive financial support through grants have to account to donors by way of regular bookkeeping, accounting and reporting.

Accounting for the behaviour of our staff and those we represent is no different, and indeed has been prioritised by donors in the last few years as a non-negotiable norm. Accountability to donors is demonstrated through data collection and the existence of usable and trusted safeguarding systems.

For example, systems need to be in place for facilitating whistleblowing, reporting SEAH incidents, and usable and effective referral pathways for survivors.

Our work can make for confusing chains of responsibility and accountability. For example, our organisation might have robust safeguarding policies and processes in place, but those we partner with may not understand their roles and responsibilities, which could prove a safeguarding risk for our organisation.

It is the aid sector’s responsibility to make sure their partners down the delivery chain are as accountable and well-functioning as possible and to look to improve weak links.

Donors can require a suite of policy documents, personnel and processes to be in place before signing a contract. These can include:

• Safeguarding policy.
• Whistleblowing policy.
• Code of conduct.
• Safeguarding Officer/Lead at management level.
• Clear, confidential and accessible reporting mechanisms.
• Risk register.

(Source: Resource and Support Hub, 2020)

Ensuring these are in place is part of due diligence on the part of donors to affected people. But donors often require further evidence to verify that the policy documents actually inform organisational practice rather than just sit on a dusty shelf. This makes safeguarding more robust, as well as limiting reputational damage to the donor if safeguarding breaches are uncovered.

Where breaches happen, donors can argue they did everything reasonable to ensure the organisation had robust safeguarding processes and practices in place. But if a donor feels their expectations aren’t being met, and the organisation is not meeting its accountability obligations, donors can suspend the project until such time as improvements are put in place, or they can stop supporting the project or the organisation altogether.

Accountability from local partners

_{© Vladimir Kononok / iStock / Getty Images Plus}

Local partners are often the closest to beneficiary communities and are therefore pivotal to accountable working. They are likely to be the first to hear of community discontent with a project, or of harm caused.

In reporting to your organisation, they can provide the necessary contextual information to help build a nuanced understanding of safeguarding risks. However, they might also have less robust accountability and safeguarding processes in place, which will need supporting.

You will need to familiarise the local partner with the commitments you have made to the donor and support the donor to help you meet these commitments. This should be done without undermining the local partner’s experience and expertise.

Regular consultation with local partners enables information sharing and facilitates discussion of the best ways to meet the needs of affected people and donors. However, you also need to build in accountability from local partners as well as your accountability to them. Challenges can be identified, and feedback mechanisms may be established together. In this way accountability can be built into collaboration and feedback mechanisms embedded in the process.

Local government may also be a necessary local partner. Whilst they might not be involved at all points, they should be kept informed, as they could have responsibility for actions after your project finishes.

Accountability to beneficiaries

Accountability to affected people is important in order to tackle SEAH in the aid sector. Where harm is caused by staff, affected people should know how to hold the organisation to account.

Accountability to beneficiaries is more complex and contested than that to local partners because of the diversity of groups involved, who are unlikely to benefit equally from your organisation’s action. But accountability to beneficiaries is also the most important form of accountability.

There can be many barriers that affected people need to overcome before becoming involved in projects and/or coming forward to make a complaint or safeguarding report that undermines accountability. These barriers may be institutional, attitudinal and/or environmental.

Institutional barriers are often more difficult to recognise. Institutions can be an organisation established for religious, educational, professional or social purposes, or they can be an established legal or other practice, such as marriage or the family. Institutions are the structures within which we live our private and public lives. Institutional barriers might stop a young woman coming forward to make a complaint about a staff member who is asking for sex in exchange for support because of the shame it could bring on her and her family.

Some individuals will have many barriers preventing them accessing support, such as being a married woman with caring responsibilities for her family (institutional and attitudinal barriers) and having no time because of water-fetching duties that can take many hours of every day (environmental barrier). You will remember from Unit 2 that such intersectionality can greatly increase vulnerability and risk to SEAH.

Attitudinal barriers are perceptions of particular groups or characteristics that can result in them not being considered or subject to stigma that prevents them accessing support. They can be cultural assumptions, gender inequalities, or because of disability or age. You explored in Unit 2 how attitudes to some groups make them more vulnerable to SEAH.

Environmental barriers are where the local context makes it difficult for some people to access support. For example, living remotely from the hub of a project or not having the time makes accessing support difficult. Similarly, having no spare time to become involved in a project (such as during harvesting season) is another environmental barrier to accessing support.

Some individuals will have many barriers preventing them accessing support, such as being a married woman with caring responsibilities for her family (institutional and attitudinal barriers) and having no time because of water-fetching duties, which can take many hours of every day (environmental barrier). You will remember from Unit 2 that such intersectionality can greatly increase vulnerability and risk to SEAH.

How beneficiaries can get involved

Ensuring accountability to beneficiaries can be facilitated by supporting local communities’ abilities to monitor project delivery and to hold those with power to account. Such initiatives can be influential in encouraging affected people to speak up, particularly regarding SEAH.

Hopefully you have reviewed practices in your own organisation and identified if there are any improvements that can be made.