2022 will be remembered as the year of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an invasion that marked a dramatic change in global geopolitics. Other than the massive devastation, the gross and serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, and the millions of refugees and internally displaced Ukrainians, the war has impacted on multilateralism and questioned principles such as neutrality. Can one remain neutral in the face of an armed invasion for which there is no legal basis in the UN Charter? Does solidarity necessarily negate neutrality, or can these two principles go together?

The Russia-Ukraine war is one where aid workers are directly faced with two states at war. Should they want to work on the two sides of the war, they will need to negotiate with both parties, something that in this war has been a bone of contention within several organisations. But the conflict in Ukraine is not the only crisis where the capacity of humanitarian actors to negotiate access is being tested. In nearly all contexts where humanitarians are active today, there are access challenges. In our work, humanitarian principles, access, protection, advocacy, leadership, and accountability continue to be main threads as we see that these issues are often at the heart of failures.

In 2022, as part of our research on humanitarian coordination, the collective character of humanitarian action has come out strongly. The inter-agency system is built on the premise that agencies will work together to achieve common results. Practice, however, looks different. Agencies will buy into a collective set of priorities as long as they correlate with their individual goals and targets. Seldom is leadership carried out and accountable for the success or failures of a system as a whole, rather than of one person or organisation. Incentives and accountabilities reward or sanction individuals. Simply said, policy and practices on collective action do not match. And what is missing is the sector being honest about this reality.

Holding the humanitarian sector accountable to its policy commitments and ensuring a degree of honesty is what inspires our research. Humanitarian policy and practice are not credible, and the reputation of the sector tarnished, when governments or humanitarian agencies adopt new policies without further steps to implement their obligations. In 2022, we saw that many continue to call for the implementation of long-standing commitments such as those on protection, accountability to affected people, or the localisation of aid, even while everyone is aware that these have become the sector’s sticking points.

HERE-Geneva is not a large organisation with tens of staff and a significant research budget. Other than being limited by available financial resources, our size is also a conscious choice. We want to remain flexible and agile and also have come to understand that we have at least one challenge in common with other larger (humanitarian) think tanks: our capacity to invoke or create change in the sector. While our research outcomes and recommendations receive general acclaim, we also see that inertia in the sector prevails, making us question our goals and raison d’être at times. How many more reviews should we produce that essentially point to similar lessons? That said, we will continue to engage with those partners who are demonstrating commitment towards continuous improvement and reform.

The purpose of our Annual Report is thus not only to showcase what we have achieved, but also what we have learned from our research and engagements with partners and what can be improved. Arguably, the most interesting, albeit short, section of this Annual Report is the section on what we, HERE-Geneva, learned in 2022. These are lessons for us, HERE-Geneva, our partners, and the broader sector.

I hope you will find our Annual Report informative and inspiring. Happy reading!

Click here for HERE’s 2022 Annual Report.