{"id":3484,"date":"2021-06-17T20:10:15","date_gmt":"2021-06-17T20:10:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/translatorswithoutborders.org\/blog\/?p=3484"},"modified":"2024-08-22T14:27:31","modified_gmt":"2024-08-22T14:27:31","slug":"language-accountability-future-grand-bargain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/translatorswithoutborders.org\/blog\/language-accountability-future-grand-bargain\/","title":{"rendered":"Listen and learn: The link between language and accountability for the future of the Grand Bargain"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Five years ago, the Grand Bargain\u2019s Participation Revolution<\/a> vowed to reform the humanitarian sector to better listen to people affected by crises. Today, lots is still ongoing to make humanitarian organizations more accountable to the people they aim to serve and respond to their feedback. The outgoing Emergency Relief Coordinator\u2019s new proposal for an Independent Commission for Voices in Crises<\/a> is the latest of several such initiatives. Across the sector, listening to people\u2019s voices and including them in humanitarian decision making are acknowledged as essential. With a proliferation of tools like hotlines and other accountability-focused activities, never before have people had so many opportunities for making their voices heard. Yet too often, these opportunities don\u2019t materialize and humanitarians remain heavily in control of making decisions, independent of people\u2019s needs and priorities.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Photo
Photo shows signage with text in English in camps for internally displaced people in Maiduguri, Borno state, northeast Nigeria. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

There are systemic weaknesses in our sector\u2019s approach to accountability, rendering whole groups voiceless within the system, simply because their voices are in another language. As the humanitarian sector deliberates on a future Grand Bargain, we must base all accountability efforts on lessons about listening to crisis-affected people in their languages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Listening is essential but not always the reality<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many aid organizations do not have the tools needed to really listen to affected people, especially in linguistically diverse contexts. The 2020 Humanitarian Accountability Report<\/a> shows that organizations are far from meeting Core Humanitarian Standard commitments on communication, participation, feedback, and complaints. Attention to language minorities has also been low<\/a>, with little consideration for how language, often coupled with other factors such as gender and displacement, leads to exclusion from humanitarian assistance and protection. Right now, the onus for listening to affected people is mostly placed on a small group of people whose job titles include the words \u201caccountability\u201d or \u201ccommunity engagement.\u201d Their efforts provide the building blocks of accountability, but they cannot systematically ensure implementation of language-aware programs.  Nor can they ensure that entire organizations change their ways sufficiently to make the system more accountable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This has serious, unintended consequences<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In Burkina Faso<\/a>, communities that speak multiple languages remain unable to engage with responders because translation and interpretation are not prioritized. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In South Sudan<\/a>, women in particular report language as a barrier to accessing information on vouchers and services they can use to obtain food and other essentials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In DRC\u2019s Equateur Province<\/a>, a lack of language support leaves women unable to access reporting mechanisms and make complaints due to the fear of not being listened to. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In northeast Nigeria<\/a>, people who don\u2019t speak Hausa or Kanuri sometimes have to rely on a neighbor or relative (sometimes a child) to act as an informal interpreter and relay their needs to enumerators. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Afghanistan<\/a>, community radio stations struggle to access information about COVID-19 in plain language and in the languages their staff and audiences speak. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across the board, language barriers are a symptom of wider issues of culture and power<\/a>. These examples demonstrate how people who don\u2019t understand or speak the languages used by humanitarians in a given context are disadvantaged and exposed to greater risks. They also point to the unfair, unrealistic reliance on national responders to carry the burden of multilingual communication untrained and unsupported.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Focus
Focus group discussion with internally displaced people in Maiduguri, Borno state, northeast Nigeria. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Practical changes are needed to make language a routine consideration in listening to affected people<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Listening to people\u2019s voices depends on understanding \u2013 and to understand, we need to consider language. Without language, listening becomes irrelevant. You can\u2019t communicate your priorities to a hotline operator who doesn\u2019t speak your language. There is no point in having a feedback box if you cannot write. People affected by crises must be able to communicate in their own language to feel heard, seen, and recognized for who they are and the rights and needs they have. To achieve the Grand Bargain\u2019s Participation Revolution and put affected people\u2019s voices at the center of humanitarian action, humanitarians need to change their standard approach to language. Learning from evidence and practice to date, we need to: <\/p>\n\n\n\n