The Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus oder Triple Nexus (HDPN) intends to overcome the barriers between all the silos simultaneously. The first such framework that directly seeks to integrate humanitarian relief with peace-building. It can provide a platform of exchange and mutual learning within the broad aid sector. Ultimately, it can improve the impact of all interventions and serve the needs of conflict-affected people.

Pursuant to the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, key actors of the humanitarian sector agreed to better integrate short-term humanitarian relief with mid- and long-term interventions. Such thinking is not new. Attempts to improve the transition from relief to development go back to the 1980s and 1990s, and some of these still influence humanitarian assistance to date – resilience, the whole-of-government approach, linking relief, rehabilitation, and development (LRRD) to name a few. Similar initiatives emerged in relation to development and peace-building, and security and peace-building over the same period. With these, parallel ‘double nexuses’ emerged and have guided at least some of the programming in the three areas of crisis intervention. In all these the common component was development. What is new now is the intention to overcome the barriers between all the silos simultaneously, creating the Humanitarian-Development-Peace or Triple Nexus (HDPN), the first such framework that directly seeks to integrate humanitarian relief with peace-building.

Until now, introducing and “operationalising” the Triple Nexus has been primarily a concern for humanitarian actors. The idea itself emerged from a humanitarian policy context, and donor pressure has been on them to adjust their programming. Their adaptation strategies are found along a continuum between outright refusal and adopting a second, or in some cases third (peace-building) mandate. However the HDPN is understood, and whatever way individual actors choose to engage with it, the ‘peace’ component in the HDPN needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere, more often than not, will be peace-building organisations. Beyond this demand from humanitarian organisations and donors, peace-builders have a number of reasons of their own to engage proactively with the HDPN. In what follows, I will review some of the reasons distilled from a research project I conducted for forumZFD – Forum Civil Peace Service, with the hope that it will contribute to the on-going discussion in the peace-building community. I will concentrate on specifically the humanitarian-peace nexus because of its novelty.

The motivation to engage

Peace-builders may want to participate in the HDPN reactively and proactively. As far as reactive motivations go, it is an opportunity to stave off harm or setbacks to conflict transformation coming from ill-considered humanitarian and development interventions. This in itself should be motivation enough, but there are a number of other reasons, opportunities to improve the impact of conflict transformation work.

Harm reduction: working with and on humanitarians and humanitarianism

Humanitarian operations can cause significant harm in the areas where they are conducted. They enter conflict-affected or conflict-prone areas with substantial resources, while not investing sufficiently in understanding the context. This is an old observation, which gave rise to diverse conflict sensitivity approaches from the 1990s onwards. Yet, it appears that conflict sensitivity in the planning and implementation of humanitarian projects, when present, often remains tokenistic. Without this contextual awareness, they can exacerbate ongoing conflict and disrupt peace-building/conflict transformation efforts, undermining exactly those processes which could reduce future need for assistance. Accordingly, where humanitarian interventions are conducted alongside peace work, it is in the interest of affected communities that peace-builders engage with humanitarian organisations in the framework of the HDPN.

While there is an admitted variation between individual humanitarian organisations in this respect, overall, they do not seem to make a serious enough effort to become conflict sensitive. And while there is also variation in the depth to which they are interested in engaging with the HDPN, improving conflict-sensitivity appears to be a common denominator among a broad range of humanitarian actors, who would welcome the already existing expertise of peace-building organisations in this field.

The lack of conflict sensitivity is caused by a number of interconnected factors: (1) the nature of humanitarian emergencies, where life-saving aid is needed very quickly, (2) the corresponding funding, which puts pressure on humanitarians to spend very large amounts of money in a very short time, (3) the accountability requirements of donors which prioritise quantitative results, (4) a high turn-over rate in which humanitarian workers typically parachute in for missions ranging from a few months to a year, and (5) an organisational (in fact, sectoral) culture, which makes humanitarian organisations and aid workers prize “quick and dirty” interventions, and dismiss thorough context/conflict analysis, and soft and slow approaches.

From this follows the need to work both with and on humanitarians. Working with humanitarians means engaging in various possible forms of cooperation, ranging from coordination to collaboration in joined-up programming. Working on humanitarian organisations, in contrast, means to develop their capacity to understand their context and act on that understanding. The tools (conflict sensitivity analyses, Do No Harm, etc.) have been there at least since the 1990s, together with the staff capable of using them. They are not being made proper use of because of the way humanitarian organisations conduct their business, their values and culture, as well as the systemic pressures and rewards they encounter. Thus, the problem is not so much a lack of capacity but a lack of interest, which requires transforming the culture of humanitarianism. This will be a long process, but one that is not unfamiliar to conflict transformation.

The HDPN is simultaneously an attempt at integrating the content of aid interventions and harmonising funding across the sector, which makes engaging donors an important avenue for peace-builders. Just as strengthening the conflict sensitivity of humanitarian organisations is key, the same applies with donors. It is important to raise donor awareness of conflict sensitivity in funding, including making resources available for it, and to work towards changing the way funding is granted, including accountability and reporting requirements and incentives.

Overcoming siloing in the international aid sector, and aid effectiveness

The most important actors in providing for the needs of the aforementioned affected populations are these populations themselves, through their own organisations and institutions. This means local civil society organisations, community leaders, and the local authorities such as mayors and municipalities or the organs of the state. The bulk of the work in humanitarian assistance, development aid, and conflict transformation happens in partnership with these local actors who possess the most nuanced understanding of the context, are best embedded in the communities, and – with some exceptions in contexts of political conflict – are legitimate in the eyes of the population they serve. Most importantly, however, they are the only ones who can make any intervention sustainable. One characteristic almost all of these local actors share, and which sets them apart from international interveners is that they do not limit their activities based on strict mandates the way international NGOs do, for example. Thus, while international organisations, and more broadly the international aid system is siloed from top to bottom, these entities are not: a local NGO or a municipality will respond to all the needs of the community, whether it is short-term emergency, medium-term development, or long-term reconciliation.
Siloing is an artificial isolation of the main fields of international aid, humanitarian assistance, development, and peace-building from each other. It takes place both at the level of programming and financing, and it answers to a particular institutional logic rather than the complex needs of crisis-affected people. This mismatch has been long recognised as a problem, and the previous ‘nexuses’ tried to address it. While there has been certain progress, the fundamental issue remains, as attested by this newest attempt. There is every chance that the HDPN will also fall short of its goals, it is nevertheless important to use this opening at breaking down some of the barriers separating the fields.
Overcoming or at least reducing siloing can help not only to better respond to complex emergencies, but also to avoid duplication of efforts, interventions that cancel each other, and thereby improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of aid.

Contributing to early peace-building

By working with humanitarian organisations within the HDPN framework, peace-building organisations may be able to begin conflict transformation work earlier in some areas. This could contribute to – and/or take the form of – increasing the conflict sensitivity of humanitarian organisations, or even include peace-building/conflict transformation components either as distinct activities or as humanitarian ones such as social cohesion projects. Such interventions serve the interests of affected communities by providing immediate benefits while creating space for long-term conflict transformation. From the perspective of the peace-building organisations themselves, there are relatively few which have the kind of capacity to operate in volatile, high-risk environments as humanitarians do. Working with them can thus help link up with more people in need, and provide entry points for peace-building.

Conclusion: improving impact and better serving communities in need

Entering the Nexus is not without challenges and risks for peace-building organisations. Such risks include, but are not limited to, possible politicisation and threats to their neutrality; being drawn away from peace-building towards securitised frameworks like counter-terrorism and stabilisation; and instrumentalisation, tokenism, and “peacewashing” by powerful actors. These challenges and more are not new in themselves, peace-builders are prepared to deal with them, but they may need to be addressed in new ways as organisations begin working in the HDPN. The increased complexity, which would result from the coordination and cooperation requirements will present a series of administrative and resource challenges, not to mention the need to deal with the inevitable friction stemming from these and the structural and cultural differences between humanitarians, development workers, and peace-builders, and their organisations.

Risks and challenges notwithstanding, the Triple Nexus provides new and important opportunities to peace-builders. It can provide a platform of exchange and mutual learning within the broad aid sector, leading to better practices. It can help overcome siloing and thus engage the civil society and authorities of people in need more on their terms than on those of international aid organisations. Ultimately, it can improve the impact of all interventions and serve the needs of conflict-affected people.