Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:44:25.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humanitarian Assistance and Accountability: What Are We Really Talking About?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2015

Y.S. Andrew Tan  and
Johan von Schreeb
Y.S. Andrew Tan*
Affiliation:
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Johan von Schreeb
Affiliation:
Centre for Research on Health Care in Disasters, Health Systems and Policy, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Correspondence: Andrew Tan c/o A/Prof Fong Ngan Phoon Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health National University of Singapore MD3, 16 Medical Drive Singapore 117597 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

In the past two decades, there has been a worldwide increase in the number of disasters, as well as the number of people affected, along with the number of foreign medical teams (FMTs) deployed to provide assistance. However, in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, multiple reports and anecdotes questioned the actual, positive contribution of such FMTs and even the intentions behind these aid efforts. This brought on a renewed interest in the humanitarian community towards accountability. Between 2000 and 2012, the number of “Quality and Accountability” initiatives and instruments more than tripled from 42 to 147. Yet, to date, there is no single accepted definition of accountability in the humanitarian context.

Aim

The aim of this report was to explore and assess how accountability in the humanitarian context is used and/or defined in the literature.

Methods

The electronic database PubMed and a predefined list of grey literature comprising 46 organizations were searched for articles that discussed or provided a definition of accountability in the humanitarian context. The definitions found in these articles were analyzed qualitatively using a framework analysis method based on principles of grounded theory as well as using a summative content analysis method.

Results

A total of 85 articles were reviewed in-depth. Fifteen organizations had formal definitions of accountability or explained what it meant to them. Accountability was generally seen in two paradigms: as a “process” or as a “goal.” A total of 16 different concepts were identified amongst the definitions. Accountability to aid recipients had four main themes: empowering aid recipients, being in an optimal position to do the greatest good, meeting expectations, and being liable. The concepts of “enforcement/enforceability” under the last theme of “being liable” received the least mention.

Conclusion

The concept of accountability is defined poorly in many humanitarian organizations. Humanitarian providers often refer to different concepts when talking about accountability in general. The lack of a common understanding is contributed by the semantic and practical complexities of the term. The lack of emphasis on “enforcement/enforceability” is noteworthy. Other aspects of accountability, such as its “measurability” and by whom, similarly lack a common understanding and community-wide consensus. To what extent these vague definitions of accountability affect agencies’ work in the field remains to be documented.

TanYSA, von SchreebJ. Humanitarian Assistance and Accountability: What Are We Really Talking About?Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(3):17

Keywords

accountabilitydisastersforeign medical teamshumanitarianism
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 30 , Supplement 3 , June 2015 , pp. 264 - 270
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. OCHA. World Humanitarian Data and Trends 2013. USA: UN OCHA; 2013.Google Scholar
2. Guha-Sapir, D, Hoyois, P, Below, R. Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2012: The Numbers and Trends. Brussels, Beligum: CRED; 2013.Google Scholar
3. Buston, O, Smith, K. Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2013. Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA, Developing Initiatives; Bristol, UK); 2013.Google Scholar
4. Cluster GH. Classification and Minimum Standards for Foreign Medical Teams in Sudden Onset Disasters. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2013.Google Scholar
5. von Schreeb, J, Riddez, L, Samnegard, H, Rosling, H. Foreign field hospitals in the recent sudden-onset disasters in Iran, Haiti, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(2):144-151; discussion 152-153.Google Scholar
6. Bremer, R. Policy development in disaster preparedness and management: lessons learned from the January 2001 earthquake in Gujarat, India. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;18(4):372-384.Google Scholar
7. Van Hoving, DJ, Wallis, LA, Docrat, F, De Vries, S. Haiti disaster tourism--a medical shame. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(3):201-202.Google Scholar
8. Gerdin, M, Wladis, A, von Schreeb, J. Foreign field hospitals after the 2010 Haiti earthquake: how good were we? Emerg Med J. 2013;30(1):e8.Google Scholar
9. DRCDR Council. 2013 Humanitarian Accountability Report. Geneva, Switzerland: HAP International; 2013.Google Scholar
10. GreyNet. GreyNet International Conference on Grey Literature 1997. Published 1997. http://www.greynet.org/greynethome/aboutgreynet.html. Accessed February 11, 2014.Google Scholar
11. Jacquet, GA, Foran, M, Bartels, S, et al. Global emergency medicine: a review of the literature from 2012. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(8):835-843.Google Scholar
12. Ziebland, S, McPherson, A. Making sense of qualitatitve data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Med Educ. 2006;40:405-414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Ritchie, J, Spencer, L, O’Connor, W. “Carrying out Qualitative Analysis.” In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, (eds). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Great Britain: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2004:219-262.Google Scholar
14. Srivastava, A, Thomson, SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration & Governance. 2009;4(2):72-79.Google Scholar
15. Hsieh, H-F, Shannon, SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-1288.Google Scholar
16. UNISDR. Terminology. Published 2007. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. Accessed March 28, 2014.Google Scholar
17. WHO Web site. Definitions: Emergencies. http://www.who.int/hac/about/definitions/en/. Accessed March 31, 2014.Google Scholar
18. Hammer, M, Lloyd, R. Pathways to Accountability II: The 2011 Revised Global Accountability Framework. London, UK: One World Trust; 2011.Google Scholar
19. Cosgrave, J. Synthesis Report: Expanded Summary. Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami. London, UK: Tsunami Evaluation Coalition; 2007.Google Scholar
20. MSF. International Activity Report 2007: Accountability - An MSF Perspective. International Activity Report 2007. Published 2007. http://www.msf.org/international-activity-report-2007-accountability-msf-perspective. Accessed March 18, 2014.Google Scholar
21. Joint Standard Initiative. The Core Humanitarian Standard (First Draft). HAP, Geneva, Switzerland; People in Aid, London, UK; The Sphere Project, Geneva, Switzerland: Joint Standards Initiative; 2013.Google Scholar
22. Birnbaum, ML. Account-ability. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(2):77-78.Google Scholar
23. Oxford English Dictionary. “Account.” United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
24. Blagescu, M. “What Makes Global Organisations Accountable? Reassessing the Global Accountability Framework.” Paper No. 101. London, UK: One World Trust; 2004.Google Scholar
25. IFRC. Beneficiary Communication and Accountability. A Responsibility, Not a Choice. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; 2011.Google Scholar
26. Larose, L, Adams, J. Accountability and quality: uncomfortable bedfellows? Humanitarian Exchange Magazine: Humanitarian Practice Network; 2002.Google Scholar
27. International HAP. The 2010 HAP Standard in Accountability and Quality Management. Geneva, Switzerland: HAP International; 2010.Google Scholar
28. Project ECB. Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies. The Good Enough Guide. Oxford: Oxfam GB; 2007.Google Scholar
29. Slim, H. “By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Non-Governmental Organisations.” International Meeting on Global Trends and Human Rights: Geneva, Switxerland; 2002.Google Scholar
30. SCHR. SCHR Peer Review on Accountability to Disaster-Affected Populations: An Overview of Lessons Learned. Geneva, Switzerland: Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response; January 2010.Google Scholar
31. Egeland, J. Humanitarian accountability: putting principles into practice. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine: Humanitarian Practice Network; 2005.Google Scholar
32. de Renzio, P, Mulley, S. “Promoting Mutual Accountability in Aid Relationships.” Briefing Paper. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute; 2006.Google Scholar
33. Oxford English Dictionary. “Accountability.” United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
34. Borowiak, CT. Accountability and Democracy: The Pitfalls and Promise of Popular Control. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2011.Google Scholar
35. Beattie, K. NGO accountability: findings from South Sudan. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine: Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN); 2011:44-46.Google Scholar
36. Castiglione, D. “Accountability.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1887607/accountability. Accessed March 30, 2014.Google Scholar
37. Llyod, R, de las Casa, L. NGO Self-Regulation: Enforcing and Balancing Accountability. Published 2006. http://www.oneworldtrust.org/csoproject/images/documents/2006_NGO_Self-Regulation_-_Enforcing_and_Balancing_Accountability.pdf. Accessed June 03, 2014.Google Scholar
38. Blagescu, M, Casas, LdL, Lloyd, R. Pathways to Accountability -- The Gap Framework. London, UK: One World Trust; 2005.Google Scholar
39. Bhattacharjee, A. Common Humanitarian Accountability Framework for IWG Agencies. Bangladesh, Bolivia, Horn of Africa, Indonesia, and Niger: Results Matter Consulting and Emergency Capacity Building Project; 2007.Google Scholar
40. Bonbright, D, Litovsky, A, Knight, A, MacCarthy, S, Mancini, A, Raynard, P. A BOND Approach to Quality in Non-Governmental Organisations: Putting Beneficiaries First. London, UK: Keystone and AccountAbility; 2006.Google Scholar
41. Schedler, A. “Conceptualizing Accountability.” In: Schedler A, Diamond L, Plattner MF, (eds). The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers; 1999:13-28.Google Scholar
42. Davis, A. Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action. Vol 58. London, UK: Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN); 2007.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tan and von Schreeb supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Tan and von Schreeb supplementary material(File)
File 27.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Tan and von Schreeb supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Tan and von Schreeb supplementary material(File)
File 18.8 KB