Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:54:35.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Uptake of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership Over Its First Ten Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

Mark P. Foran  and
Alan R. Williams
Mark P. Foran*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York USA Global Institute of Public Health, New York University, New York, New York USA Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA
Alan R. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York USA
*
Correspondence: Mark Foran, MD, MPH 462 1st Avenue, Room A349A New York, NY 10016 USA E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Accountability in the delivery of humanitarian aid has become increasingly important and emphasized by the humanitarian community. The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) was created in 2003 in order to improve accountability in the humanitarian sector. HAP acts as a self-regulatory body to the humanitarian system. One of the main goals of HAP is the promotion of accountability through self-regulation by members. Humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can become members by meeting standards of accountability and quality management set by HAP. This report describes the growth of HAP membership by the humanitarian community from its inception until present.

Hypothesis/Problem

The hypothesis for this study was that HAP membership has grown substantially since inception, both in terms of number of member organizations and annual budgets of member organizations, but that near universal membership has not yet been achieved.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted to determine the total number and percentage of humanitarian NGOs that are members of HAP. Total expenditures of HAP members in 2010 also was measured and compared with the total humanitarian expenditure by all humanitarian NGOs for the same year. The reference year of 2010 was chosen in order to be able to compile accurate budgets for the largest possible number of HAP members. The total number of HAP members for the years 2005 through 2012 was divided by the estimated number of humanitarian NGOs active in 2010. The total budgets for HAP members in 2010 were divided by the estimated total humanitarian expenditure of all NGOs for 2010.

Results

As of the beginning of 2012, the percentage of humanitarian NGOs that were members of HAP was 1.6% (68 members out of 4400 organizations). The combined budgets of the member organizations of HAP in 2010 made up 62.9% of the total humanitarian expenditure for the year 2010 (US $4.65 billion/7.4 billion).

Conclusion

A very small proportion of humanitarian NGOs have adopted HAP membership. However, HAP members account for almost two-thirds of all humanitarian expenditures. The humanitarian sector, therefore, remains without a universal regulatory and accountability structure, although progress has been made. Efforts should be made to increase the membership within HAP of more small to medium sized organizations.

ForanMP , WilliamsAR . Global Uptake of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership Over Its First Ten Years. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(4):1-4.

Keywords

accountabilityconflictdisasterhumanitarianregulatory
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , August 2014 , pp. 413 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014 

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. Kirsch, T, Siddiqui, MA, Perrin, PC, Robinson, WC, Sauer, LM, Doocy, S. Satisfaction with the humanitarian response to the 2010 Pakistan floods: a call for increased accountability to beneficiaries. Emerg Med J. 2013;30(7):565-571.Google Scholar
2. Jayasinghe, S. Erosion of trust in humanitarian agencies: what strategies might help? Glob Health Action. 2011;4:8973.Google Scholar
3. Growth of aid and the decline of humanitarianism. Lancet. 2010;375(9711):253.Google Scholar
4. Foran, MP, Greenough, PG, Thow, A, et al. Identification of current priorities for research in humanitarian action: proceedings of the First Annual UN OCHA Policy and Research Conference. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(3):260-266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Burkle, FM Jr., Redmond, AD, McArdle, DF. An authority for crisis coordination and accountability. Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2223-2225.Google Scholar
6. Miles, R, Stevens, E, Erickson, J, Loke, A. Collaboration in Crises: Lessons in Community Participation from the Oxfam International Tsunami Research Program. Boston, Massachusetts USA: Oxfam America; 2009.Google Scholar
7. Maxwell, D, Bailey, S, Harvey, P, Walker, P, Sharbatke-Church, C, Savage, K. Preventing corruption in humanitarian assistance: perceptions, gaps and challenges. Disasters. 2012;36(1):140-160.Google Scholar
8. Redmond, AD, O'Dempsey, TJ, Taithe, B. Disasters and a register for foreign medical teams. Lancet. 2011;377(9771):1054-1055.Google Scholar
9. Miller, J, Stolz, K, Ferris, E. Moving Beyond Rhetoric: Consultation and Participation with Populations Displaced by Conflict or Natural Disasters. Washington, DC USA: The Brookings Institution; 2008.Google Scholar
10. Walker, P, Hein, K, Russ, C, Bertleff, G, Caspersz, D. A blueprint for professionalizing humanitarian assistance. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(12):2223-2230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Dabelstein, N. Evaluating the international humanitarian system: rationale, process and management of the joint evaluation of the international response to the Rwanda genocide. Disasters. 1996;20(4):286-294.Google Scholar
12. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. New York, New York USA: United Nations; 1999.Google Scholar
13. Lloyd, R, Casas, L. NGO Self-regulation: Enforcing and Balancing Accountability. London UK: One World Trust; 2006.Google Scholar
14. Hilhorst, D. Being good at doing good? Quality and accountability of humanitarian NGOs. Disasters. 2002;26(3):193-212.Google Scholar
15. The 2011 Humanitarian Accountability Report. Geneva, Switzerland: HAP International; 2011.Google Scholar
16. Taylor, G, Stoddard, A, Harmer, A, et al. The State of the Humanitarian System. London UK: ALNAP, Overseas Development Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
17. Joint Standards Initiative. 2012. Joint Standards website. www.jointstandards.org. Accesses December 7, 2012.Google Scholar