This report is the culmination of three
months work completed by the HAP team during the Second Field Trial in
Afghanistan. In writing this report, the authors (Andy Featherstone and
Sarah Routley) have endeavoured to present the findings in a very practice-oriented
way in order to inform the implementation of forthcoming Trials and to
provide practical guidance to those decision-makers with responsibility
for crafting a future humanitarian accountability mechanism.
During the Trial, several approaches
were tested and feedback and critical reflection is provided for each of
these. Conclusions and recommendations are made at the end of the paper
that will serve to draw lessons from the three-month duration of the Trial.
The Second Field Trial: Why Afghanistan?
There can be little doubt that Afghanistan represents one of the most complex and difficult environments in which humanitarian agencies have been requested to operate. Because of their work amidst ongoing military operations, continuous insecurity and huge displacement of populations, humanitarian agencies have had to cope with a challenging social and political environment. This situation has challenged the accountability principles that humanitarian agencies strive to uphold.
The war against terror that followed the terrorist attacks on the US served to oust the Taliban regime and in doing so also precipitated a shift in the international community from a policy of isolationism to engagement. The Bonn Agreement and subsequent pledges made at the International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan, held in Tokyo in January 2002, represent a serious commitment by the international community to re-engage in Afghanistan. Such commitment has also bought with it funds for humanitarian relief and reconstruction which have been widely welcomed by the Afghan people and which have justifiably raised expectations. Afghans are anxious to see a peace dividend from the Bonn Agreement as well as tangible evidence of the international community's commitment to peace, justice and recovery. But the challenges are enormous. Afghanistan lies devastated by 23 years of war, missed development opportunities, a huge human rights deficit, massive displacement and the worst drought in living memory (UNDP, 2002).
The change of policy used it Afghanistan has also created a number of new challenges to relief and development agencies working in the country. After two decades of war, the situation in Afghanistan was viewed as one of a number of persistent and intractable crises, and as a result, suffered from donor fatigue. While funds continued to be committed by international donor agencies, NGOs had become accustomed to running programs on low budgets or making upshortfalls with private funds. The sudden availability of economic resources to local NGOs, international NGOs and UN agencies has emerged at a time when there is a shortage of capacity to absorb, co-ordinate and disburse these funds properly (Harvard Program on Humanitarianpolicy and Conflict Research, Mar 2002).
These challenges are particularly salient when viewed through the lens of accountability. As evaluations of international response to crises in the Great Lakes, Kosovo and Gujarat have highlighted, the rush to provide aid to affected communities can take priority over accountability. Ensuring that assistance programs elicit the views of participants and are built upon the capacities of communities they seek to assist is a lower priority. The concern amongst practitioners is that Afghanistan will be one in a growing list of countries where the humanitarian community squanders the opportunities afforded by increased funding and media profile.
Preliminary assessments, including one conducted by the HAP, indicate that the current climate in Afghanistan is characterised by a justified sense of urgency among aid agencies to maximise the impact of aid and avoid the recurrent problems of the past. As such, it provides an opportunity to put into place and test an accountability mechanism, and learn from other initiatives and good practices.
The question of accountability bears specific meaning and weight in Afghanistan. The countries suffered decades of warfare, the absence of a fully functioning governmental system, and the resulting mass refugee movements. Setting up a mechanism, which aims to inform, listen and Humanitarian Accountability Project - Final Report, Afghanistan Field Trial, October 2002 respond to Afghan people, and to ensure quality dialogue between the aid agencies and the Afghan beneficiaries, constitutes an important step towards contributing to good governance and the reconstruction of Afghan communities (HAP, 2001). It was in this environment that the Humanitarian Accountability Project proposed to run its Second Field Trial in Herat Province.
(in pdf* format - 1.47 MB)