For the HDP nexus approach to create more impact in managing crises and conflict, it will not suffice to bridge gaps between project activities and to promote a mind-set that allows understanding each other’s goals. Where humanitarian crises go along with protracted or open violent conflict, the peacebuilding pillar must take centre stage and include “Big P” activities.
“Aren’t you the man from the Bundeswehr?” one of the authors of this essay was often asked in FriEnt peacebuilding events. Well, he was not. But he did find some merit in the concept of “vernetzte Sicherheit”. This uniquely German term, not entirely correctly translated as “networked security”, was the federal government’s label for a comprehensive approach to security affairs. When introduced in 2006, it almost immediately encountered opposition from civil society actors who feared that this would imply a “securitization” of peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian aid.
Ten years later, these very communities initiated more collaboration in a comprehensive approach. Under the technocratic acronym “HDP Nexus” they strive for more coherence, synergies, and collective outcomes with a view to achieve better impact. The growing number of humanitarian crises worldwide, often in combination with violent conflict, and the financial bottlenecks of humanitarian and development organisations alike certainly contributed to that shift of mind.
The Triple Nexus
The first World Humanitarian Summit, initiated by the UN and organised by its Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in 2016, formulated the aspiration to better link humanitarian aid and development cooperation in a “Double Nexus”. A few months later, António Guterres began his tenure as Secretary-General of the UN with a statement claiming that “humanitarian response, sustainable development and sustaining peace are three sides of the same triangle”. Hence, what took off as a Double Nexus became a Triple Nexus.
Since then, the UN institutions, large donor countries (cooperating in the OECD Development Assistance Committee, DAC, and the International Network on Conflict and Fragility, INCAF) and a number of internationally active non-governmental organisations have taken steps to put the nexus approach into practice. To a large degree, the discussions and implementing activities are of technical nature, focusing on intra-organisational structural changes, formats of coordination and financing modes. Progress in linking H, D and P has been particularly visible around activities that follow a project logic.
All these are important developments and the rather de-politicised nature of the HDP nexus helped to get actors on board that otherwise do not want to be associated with political goals and intentions. This is a particular concern in the humanitarian sphere.
But it also comes at a cost in that the HDP nexus debate has a blind spot. In development and humanitarian aid circles it is almost omnipresent, amongst peacebuilders (including security actors) less so. Correspondingly, the peace dimension remains underdefined and underdeveloped.
The “small p” & the “Big P”
For most development and humanitarian actors, peace consists of what has been referred to as „small p“. This includes programmes that are conflict-sensitive, boost resilience through the provision of basic services for vulnerable populations, and contribute to social cohesion. Here, peacebuilding is mostly mainstreamed into project activities.
But beyond the lands of the „small p“ lies the realm of “Big P”, covering peacebuilding in the form of high-ranking political dialogue, diplomatic initiatives, peacekeeping or stabilisation operations. These are all activities that are mainly carried out by peacebuilding, diplomatic or security actors in their own right.
The crux is that where humanitarian crises go along with protracted or open violent conflict, “small p” activities are often insufficient to have a significant impact on peacebuilding. In this case, it is necessary to bring “small p” programmes in synch with “Big P” activities. Depending on the specific context, both can be needed.
Hence, the main shortcoming of the HDP nexus debate is not a lack of work on the technical modes of cooperation. Rather, it is the lack of focus on the underlying political assumptions of what is likely to have significant impact.
What is the take-away?
To make progress, there is a need to reflect on shared and realistic theories of change more thoroughly: What can we realistically expect conflict sensitive projects to achieve, and under which conditions? Here, we can identify two positions. The humble one stresses (correctly) that all peace efforts need time to show substantive impact. Hence it is justified not to expect too much too quickly. The more ambitious position, in contrast, demands that we stop labelling activities that at best produce minimal impact as peacebuilding, as they sustain the conceptual fuzziness of what really works.
For the HDP nexus approach to contribute to real progress on the long-standing goal of better coherence and coordination in areas of crisis and conflict, it will not suffice to bridge gaps in project activities and to promote a mind-set that allows understanding each other’s goals. In addition to that, innovations need to help to develop a realistic joint understanding of the bigger picture.
This essay heavily draws on: Carina Böttcher and Andreas Wittkowsky, 2021:Give „P“ a Chance: Peacebuilding, Peace Operations and the HDP Nexus. ZIF Study, Berlin: Center for International Peace Operations.
