Aid Agency Accountability: Who's Your Sugar Daddy?

Published June 16, 2009 @ 08:29AM PT

In a perfect world, aid agencies would be accountable first and foremost to those they help. Also, in a perfect world, it would rain lemonade. And there would be unicorns.

Don't get me wrong, important steps have been taken. Especially on the graphic-semantic front. We tend not to exploit pictures of starving children. (At least, not most of us. Except occassionally Concern.) We try to use terms like beneficiaries - or, even better, partners - to show that we're all in this together.

Yet at the end of the day, realities are realities. And the reality is that you can't work if you don't have funding. Which is why the findings from the 2008 HAP Humanitarian Accountability Report aren't particularly surprising.

In a survey of over 650 staff working for NGOs, the UN, donor agencies and research institutions, only 25% reported that humanitarian agencies were "highly" accountable to beneficiaries. On the other hand, 74% reported that agencies were highly accountable to donors.

According to the report: "there remains an inescapable and consistent result from all four surveys [2005-2008]: that the pecking order for accountability is always towards institutional donors first and disaster survivors last."

It's too easy to cast stones. (Except, ummmm, when it comes to the Concern Cure Starvation Appeal. Or Nicholas Kristof.) Humanitarian operations cost money. Especially when you're trying to respond to a massive, complex emergency. It's difficult to feed and shelter hundreds of thousands or millions of people on good intentions alone.

And far too often, the money simply isn't there. The UN has been able to raise only 25% of the funds it needs to help 2.5 million people displaced by the fighting in Pakistan. NGOs are also struggling. According to Oxfam's Humanitarian Director: "This is the worst funding crisis we've faced in over a decade for a major humanitarian emergency."

It's not just Pakistan. As of late May, the UN had only received 39% of the funds it needs in Sri Lanka. NGOs are also slashing budgets across the board.

Aid agencies are trying, and there has been some improvement on the accountability front - in 2005, only 8% of respondents said that agencies were highly accountable to beneficiaries.

But as long as aid agencies need money, and as long as money is in short supply, it's hardly surprising that accountability to donors trumps all.

PS - Hat tip to Katie Nguyen at Reuters AlertNet for initially reporting about the HAP survey.

[Photo from www.yourfunnystuff.com]

Share this Post

Comments (5)

Before we exile beneficiary accountability too far into the realm of unicorns, I think it's encouraging to note that HAP was only set up in 2003, and has already contributed to some noticeable movement in the right direction.

The financial and power imbalance between disaster victims and donor agencies isn't ever going away... which is why it's important to get the "sugar daddies" on the side of beneficiary accountability. That includes convincing them to spare some sugar for the extra staff time and resources it takes to set up and manage good feedback and participation mechanisms with the population you're serving. It also includes the donors holding us aid agencies accountable for how we treat beneficiaries.

True, getting approval for extra spending on anything is tough during financial crises like the current one, but accountability done right is an important safeguard against wasteful and corrupt projects, so I think we can still make a strong case...

Posted by Joel Hafvenstein on 06/17/2009 @ 06:20AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
I'm the worst kind of cynic - one who wants to believe in unicorns.

Posted by Michael Bear on 06/18/2009 @ 07:22PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Joel
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Well, make sure you read some Peter Beagle along with your IF Stone to keep that side of you fed. And next time we see each other, I can tell you some encouraging stories from our own HAP certification process.

Posted by Joel Hafvenstein on 06/19/2009 @ 07:28AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Joel
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
i'd like to know who funds the HAP, we should definitely be paying more for information like this. i think the regulatory agencies should just be funding research and education rather than enforcing restrictions that may or may not help people. well maybe not completely:/ but anyway, donors should be paying for this information before they give. charity can be a mixed blessing, if only the christians would learn.

Posted by colin forwood on 06/21/2009 @ 08:37PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by colin
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I volunteer for a cyclists NGO in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. We wrote a letter to the EU offices in Dar es Salaam, who are funding road construction in Dar es Salaam, asking about the inclusion of facilities for cyclists, and followed it up many times by visiting, phone etc but did not get any reply to our letter. Only when I emailed my MEP in Brussels (I am Irish) did I get a response. This illustrated that the EU funding programmes for roads in Tanzania are accountable only to the EU and not to the citizens of Tanzania.

Posted by Elaine Baker on 06/22/2009 @ 01:41AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Elaine
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Michael has worked for NGOs in Afghanistan, across east and central Africa, and Iraq. Prior to going overseas, he worked on a project providing assistance to the United Nations on the application of International Humanitarian Law to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.