The humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus seeks to align humanitarian, development, and peace interventions to address crises holistically. Within this framework, peace is defined as a multifaceted process: it begins with analyzing conflict drivers to address their root causes, centers affected populations as key actors in solution design, prioritizes conflict prevention, requires inclusive stakeholder participation, and encompasses peacebuilding activities. However, integrating peace into development and humanitarian programs poses several dilemmas:
- Prioritization
Peacebuilding is central to the HDP nexus, yet it is often overshadowed by humanitarian or development efforts. Emergency needs, short-termed donor preferences and views of peace as a long-term or secondary objective limit its early inclusion. Programs should incorporate peacebuilding, conflict and needs assessments from the outset during project design.
- Measuring Complementarity and Contextual Fit
Assessing how peace interventions align with humanitarian and development efforts is challenging. Measuring the impact of peace activities, which are often qualitative and long-term, is complex in dynamic conflict settings, leading to uneven application across contexts. Organizations should adopt context-specific indicators for peace outcomes, combining quantitative metrics (e.g., reduction in violent incidents) with qualitative assessments (e.g., community trust levels). - Risk of Politicization
The HDP nexus envisions peace as reinforced by humanitarian and development efforts. However, prioritizing peace risks politicizing the other components, potentially breaching principles like humanitarian impartiality and independence. To avoid this, clear guidelines should define how peace can support aid without bias. For example, humanitarian aid in Gaza could focus on universal access while peace processes occur separately, enabling dialogues involving all stakeholders. - Limited Expertise Across Nexus Components
Effective HDP nexus implementation requires context-specific expertise in humanitarian, development, and peace domains. Yet, organizations often expect humanitarian experts to double as development or peace specialists, leading to duplicated roles and ineffective interventions. Organizations should invest in cross-training to bridge skill gaps. - Challenges in Achieving Coherency and Coordination
Achieving coherency and complementarity is difficult amid poor communication and limited coordination between actors. In conflict zones, stakeholders—state actors, armed groups, and NGOs—may be unable or unwilling to align efforts, undermining nexus efficacy. Multi-stakeholder platforms—such as coordination hubs or working groups—can enhance coordination and coherency. - Navigating Negative and Positive Peace
The HDP nexus distinguishes between negative peace (ceasefires, temporary stability) and positive peace (sustainable, inclusive peace). Determining which to prioritize is a dilemma. For instance, in Gaza, ceasefires (negative peace) enable humanitarian aid but often fail to transition to positive peace, as recurring conflicts demonstrate. Poor planning for this transition risks perpetuating cycles of instability. - Ambiguity in Peace Definition and Funding
The fluid definition of peace within the HDP nexus allows flexibility but also leads to inconsistent programming. Some actors exploit this ambiguity, allocating minimal resources to peace or applying overly broad interventions (e.g., ranging from militarized efforts to social reintegration). Debates persist over whether peace should encompass both “hard” (security-focused) and “soft” (community-based) interventions, complicating funding and program design.
Operationalizing the peace component of the HDP nexus requires early integration, clear definitions, improved coordination, and skilled personnel. Context-sensitive, inclusive approaches that prioritize affected populations can help fulfill the nexus’s emphasis on sustainable peacebuilding.