Why accountability remains a challenge in humanitarian operations

Last year, about ninety-three million people were affected by natural disasters and the economic losses amounted to more than $200 billion. For many, their world changed within hours from having a home and belongings to living in a temporary shelter–a horrifying reality they had never imagined. Being affected by disasters does not make people any less deserving of a life with dignity. They have a right to it.
News and imageries of suffering, bring people together to offer assistance and empathy. Their approach, however, can sometimes miss the mark. Preserving the dignity of victims of disasters is as much a part of relief as meeting their basic needs. There is a tendency for some to view donations as a noble opportunity to get rid of unwanted household items like old clothes and earn good deeds. This kind of giving is misguided, as it creates an imbalance of power, where those receiving aid are seen as lesser and expected to be grateful for whatever they get, even if it does not suit their needs.
There are global standards that guide how humanitarian aid should be provided, such as the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS), Sphere Standards, and The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. These standards emphasise that aid should be delivered in a way that respects the dignity of those affected by disasters. Aid is not a favour but a responsibility, ensuring that people can recover with dignity.
When these standards are not met, the consequences can be severe. Overcrowded camps, lack of privacy for women, girls, and LGBTQI individuals, and inappropriate relief items—like food that does not fit local diets or clothing unsuited to the local climate—are common problems. Beyond these immediate issues, there is plenty of evidence showing that such failures increase vulnerability, waste resources, erode trust, and lead to violence within communities and worsening health conditions.
In India, how disasters are handled varies a lot from one state to another. This difference often comes down to the priorities of those in charge rather than a set process. While some leaders prioritise quality and accountability, others may not, leading to inconsistent responses that vary in effectiveness.
To fix this, India needs to adopt a more systematic approach to disaster response. This means reducing the chance of human error and ensuring consistent quality. A key part of this is risk assessment. Currently, there is a lack of consistency in how these assessments are carried out. Standardising these assessments and making sure they are done in the immediate aftermath of a disaster would help create a more reliable response to disasters. Based on assessment, the allocation of funds, and utilisation of the resources should all be guided by clearly defined parameters of quality. The time taken to release funds, procurement and movement of supplies, relevance and quality of supplies, processes followed should all be reviewed after every response.
Accountability in disaster response is not just about following rules—it is about making sure that the aid given really meets the needs of those affected. This requires a thorough approach that includes clear procedures, ongoing training, and feedback from those receiving aid. Real-time tracking of aid can help make sure that resources are used efficiently. Moreover, getting feedback from those who receive aid can help make sure it is truly meeting their needs, rather than being based on assumptions.
In disaster response, accountability is not optional; it is a necessity. People who are affected by disasters deserve help that respects their dignity and addresses their real needs. To make this happen, we need a systematic approach that prioritises quality and accountability at every step.
In India, as well as globally some great examples of quality and accountability are found in response, recovery, prevention and mitigation. Japan, for instance, has strict building codes that ensure structures can withstand earthquakes. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have invested in flood barriers and other protections, while Taipei uses building stabilisers to protect against natural disasters. India can learn from these examples by incorporating resilient infrastructure into its disaster response plans.
The challenges in disaster response are significant, but they can be overcome. By learning from the best practises of other countries and committing to making real changes, India can build a disaster response system that is both effective and humane. Quality and accountability are not just words; they are the foundation of a disaster response system that truly serves those it aims to help.
The path to achieving this is long and requires the combined efforts of governments, NGOs, and the community. However, with a clear commitment to these principles, it is possible to build a disaster response system that not only saves lives but also respects the dignity of those who have already lost so much. The time to act is now, and it begins with a renewed focus on quality and accountability in every part of humanitarian effort.
This article is authored by Eilia Jafar, humanitarian and development professional.