The Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus: Implementation Challenges – World

KfW Development Research
Development in brief

Authors: Sandra Oelke, Anna Scherer
Editorial team: Heide Kühlken

Today’s crises are increasingly long-lasting, recurrent, complex and interrelated. In this context, and given the growing gap between humanitarian needs and the resources provided, Ban Ki-Moon, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, called for a paradigm shift and a new way of working to make the more effective international system. and effective at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. As a result, the concept of the humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus was created, the development of which is critically examined below.

Objective: better interconnection of the various instruments

The interconnection of humanitarian aid and long-term development cooperation had already started to be implemented in the 1990s through the Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) approach. What is particularly new in terms of the concept of the triple bond is the inclusion of the dimension of peace. Humanitarians as well as development and peace actors are called upon to better coordinate their work in order to promote more effectively the transformation of crises and conflicts into lasting peace.

In the past, different funding mandates, approaches and logics as well as a lack of cooperation mechanisms among stakeholders led to poor integration of interventions and, therefore, often compromised efficiency and effectiveness. efficiency.

Challenges: broad strategy, lack of incentives and poor mutual understanding

Despite the awareness of the relevance of the concept and the first successes, the implementation still poses major challenges to the actors concerned. Effective and efficient cooperation across institutional borders requires adjustment of internal structures, processes and procedures that have often evolved over decades. Within institutions and the nexus system, there is also a lack of incentive structures to encourage cooperation. Additionally, there is no in-depth understanding of the work and functioning of other stakeholder groups. Last but not least, there is a lack of joint analysis and scenario planning to set the direction for coherent programs that map all aspects of the HDP nexus. Despite the recommendations of the OECD DAC, the rather broad concept leaves a lot of room for interpretation and leads to different actors having a different understanding of how the actual implementation of the HDP nexus should take place.

Possible solutions: more coordination, more perspective shifts and dedicated cooperation at all levels

The following measures seem appropriate to ensure that individual actors focus more on a common and overarching system of goals:

‒ Ask “win-win questions” more consistently: What forms of cooperation create added value for stakeholders How to create new incentive structures for cooperation or adapt existing ones?

‒ Measures at the national political level: for example, better interdepartmental/internal coordination, the development of joint analyzes and national strategies with potential for nexus, and the overcoming of bureaucratic obstacles.

‒ Improved national and international coordination at the local level to ensure greater coherence (eg through strengthened coordination mandates).

‒ Establish inter-donor platforms to share analysis and data.

‒ Encourage personnel changes, twinning and exchange formats between different stakeholder groups to encourage changes in perspective.

‒ Building on existing best practices, develop more specific guidance on implementing the HDP link at a higher level (eg OECD).

Implementing the HPD link is a long-term task that requires substantial system modifications. However, consideration of the above proposals will enable further improvements in terms of more sustainable impacts and more effective use of funds in the context of crises, violence and fragility.

Comments are closed.