Rethinking Humanitarian Accountability : A Case Study of the World Food Programme in Iraq

Humanitarian accountability has been a topic of discussion since the 1990s, in response to a number of high-level scandals. Dozens of initiatives highlighting the importance of accountability to affected populations have been established. However, humanitarian organisations still receive criticisms for lacking accountability. This thesis examines the research question: How does the World Food Programme use international standards to guide accountability in its humanitarian interventions in Iraq, and how these standards fulfil its commitments to the affected populations? This is done through an in-depth case study of the WFP, in the context of Iraq. The academic literature highlights the concept of humanitarian accountability as both a practical concern as well as a moral one. This is emphasised within the literature of humanitarian organisations together with how accountability, as a concept, have been poorly defined, and research as to its practice is continuously lacking. This research found that the accountability provided was mainly technical and accountability to affected populations in Iraq remain low. Accountability practices that are currently in place does not live up to the commitment made by the WFP to affected populations in Iraq. Further, the research pinpoints how accountability within the WFP has become more of a technical standard in practice, which has resulted in limited scope of accountability to affected populations in Iraq. This results in phantom accountability, characterised by meaningless mechanisms and indicators that instead portray an image of accountability while not translating into actual practical actions towards affected populations