HOME I OVERVIEW I OPERATIONALIZATION I PARTNERS PRESENCE I SUPPORT NEEDED I SUMMARY
Identify a baseline to implement the 2023 – 2025 FSC strategic plan.
Assess the progress made in operationalizing the HDPN approach and the goals to be achieved.
Reveal challenges and support needs for countries to operationalize the HDPN approach.
Responses were gathered from FSC Coordinators representing 27 operations.
The report provides an overview of the status of the HDPN approach in countries in four sections:
Overview of the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus Approach at country level (as of February 2024): This section provides a comprehensive snapshot of the current status of the HDPN approach across the countries covered by the survey: leadership, coordination platforms, buy-in from government.
Operationalizing the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus Approach in Food Security Cluster Countries: In this section, we delve deeper into the practical aspects of implementing the HDPN approach from a Food Security Cluster perspective. It shows mapping the presence of joint initiatives in terms of programming, advocacy, needs analysis, funding, MEAL.
HDP Partners Presence and Coordination: Here, we analyze the presence and coordination of FSC partners engaged in the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus. This section explores the diversity of stakeholders involved and the geographical level of coordination among them.
Challenges and Support Needed in Operationalizing the HDP Nexus Approach: The final section outlines the challenges encountered during the operationalization of the HDP Nexus approach and identifies the support required to address them. It offers insights into the barriers hindering progress and suggests potential solutions to overcome these obstacles effectively.
Under the GNAFC initiative 2018-2022 for the gFSC, the Food Security Cluster (FSC) was tasked to build capacity to better respond to food crises by strengthening coordination among HDP actors in 5 pilot countries - Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Piloting the HDPN approach in these countries has been a starting point for formulating the HDPN as a pillar of the 2023 - 2025 FSC strategic plan, using the experience and considering the lessons learned while scaling up the approach in other contexts.
Why does the FSC continue the HDPN approach:
Respond effectively to protracted crises by providing humanitarian assistance in a coordinated manner considering interventions and plans of development partners and advocating to addressing root causes of food insecurity.
Gradually reduce humanitarian needs over time.
Strengthen resilience, anticipate shocks, and prevent or mitigate new needs, thereby breaking the cycle of dependence on humanitarian assistance.
The primary role of the FSC in supporting the HDPN approach is to facilitate discussions, find common ground, support technical analysis, connect HDP actors, provide a platform for joint work, and advocate with donors.
Overview of Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus Approach at country level
In most of the countries with active food security clusters, the coordination among HDP actors is established to some extent (in 4 operations, it is well established and in 18 partially). In operations with well-established coordination (Cameroon, Ethiopia Food Cluster, Pakistan, Niger) in most cases, the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) or Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) is taking the lead. In some operations, the leadership is also being undertaken by the government (Niger) or Inter-Sectoral Group (Pakistan).
Among operations with partially established HDP coordination, varied degrees of progress and challenges is being observed. While some operations have established platforms and mechanisms for coordinating humanitarian and development actions, others face fragmentation and informal coordination efforts. Challenges include weak coordination mechanisms, lack of data sharing, and a disconnect between humanitarian, development, and peace actors. Efforts are underway to strengthen coordination, with initiatives led by UN agencies, NGOs, and government bodies. However, there remains a need for enhanced coordination, alignment of activities, and clarity on roles to avoid duplication and maximize impact. The responses underscore the importance of fostering dialogue and collaboration to effectively address the complexities of protracted crises and promote sustainable development and peacebuilding efforts within affected communities.
In five operations the coordination between HDP actors is not established and most of the partners work in silos (Syria Damascus, Syria NES, Central African Republic, Myanmar, Sudan) mainly due to contextual reasons.
Leadership of the HDP Nexus coordination
Among those operations with established or partially established coordination between HDP actors, more often this coordination is being led by HC or HCT (in 11 operations), OCHA or Inter-Cluster Coordination Group (in 9 operations) and host government (8 operations).
Inter-Cluster Coordination Group also often serves as a coordination platform to discuss the issues related to HDP Nexus (16 operations), together with HCT and governmental platforms (11 operations), cluster working groups (9 operations), FSC regular meetings (8 operations), UNCT (8 operations). The HDPN questions are also being discussed in other clusters' meetings and technical working group discussions. The coordinators point out that in almost all sectorial groups this theme appears as a necessity and it has been discussed in other platforms, including Inter-Cluster Coordination Group (ICCG), Durable Solutions and Anticipatory Actions Working Groups, HRP preparation meetings and workshops. The Agriculture Technical Working Groups established under the FSC are being considered in several operations as a platform and starting point to initiate the HDPN discussions in countries (Burkina Faso, Syria Gaziantep, Syria NES).
Buy-in from government
Durable Solution and Early Recovery Sectors
Early Recovery Clusters/Sectors/ Working Groups are established in 8 operations, and almost everywhere is being led by UNDP. Durable Solution Working Groups are established in 10 operations and are being co-led most often by IOM, UNHCR, and specialized ministries. As reported by the cluster coordinators, only in two operations out of 27 both Durable Solutions and Early Recovery Sectors are established – Chad and Nigeria.
Operationalizing the HDP Nexus Approach in Food Security Cluster Countries
Operationalizing the HDPN approach implicates a synergy and parallel work in key elements: joint programming, advocacy, needs analysis, MEAL, funding. This section explores the status of these key elements of HDPN operationalization in countries with activated Food Security Clusters / Sectors.
Joint advocacy of HDP actors
In most of the countries– 15 operations – no joint advocacy has been reported, however in 8 operations joint advocacy efforts have been undertaken, though not funded yet. In 4 operations – Cameroon, Chad, Somalia, Pakistan – joint advocacy to fund joint programmes was successful.
In 7 operations joint needs analysis and assessment exercises across HDP actors have been undertaken – in Venezuela, Haiti, Chad, Sudan, Somalia, Syria Gaziantep and Pakistan. For example, in Pakistan, development and humanitarian actors contributed to Inter Agency Joint Needs Assessment in post 2022 floods in three provinces.
Joint HDP mapping of actors and activities has been reported by 9 coordinators. In 5 countries where the FSC was piloting the Outcome 9 of the GNAFC initiatives (Chad, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan), a joint HDPN mapping was undertaken by the FSC and its partners, with contributions from development and peace actors. In some other countries, both humanitarian and resilience programmes are being reported also to the cluster (Lebanon, Mozambique where HDP mapping is being undertaken at the sub-national level). The most of other elements of the MEAL – joint and shared data collection, joint monitoring framework and learning – were implemented in couple of operations. Some good examples of collaboration between HDPN actors to learn from. Burkina Faso: the community-based resilience and stabilization project. Pacific: most cyclone responses across the Pacific have elements of humanitarian and development collaboration and planning. Honduras: collection of information and evaluations for immediate help interventions and anticipatory actions such as family gardens, microenterprises. Contingency planning against drought and actions by the Humanitarian Network, carrying out evaluations for damages caused by storms and rains as support to the Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock and multipurpose cash transfers. Haiti: example of intersectoral approach by ActionAid that has undertaken research to fill this gap and bring new insights to the rhetoric, by drawing on the experiences of women and their organizations working across the Nexus. Ethiopia: collaboration between HCT and Development Partners Group. South Sudan: Participatory Learning Exercise on best HDP practices Ukraine: discussions with development actors on the needs of joint coordination were taking place before the escalation. Pakistan: Post Disaster Needs Assessment led by the Government of Pakistan with support of UN and other stakeholders; 4-RF (Resilient Recovery, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Framework) of the Government of Pakistan linking recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Colombia: Anticipatory Actions approach promoted by humanitarian projects incorporated in some governmental sectorial plans.
Joint funding
HDP Partners Presence and Coordination
At what geographical levels the HDP partners are coordinating
When asking the question at what geographical level the HDP actors are coordinating, in majority of the countries the actors are coordinating at the national level (15 operations), and less often at province and district levels (8 and 3 operations consecutively). This could be explained by the fact that the coordination between HDP actors in most operations is at its initial stage, and coordination at more granular geographical level would appear later when the coordination at national level would be established.
Number of HDP actors at geographical levels
Looking at the number of each actor per HDP pillar, on average per operation at all geographical levels the majority of involved actors are humanitarian, two to three time less development actors and very few peace actors.
Number of HDP actors by pillar
Analyzing the number of actors per partner type, we can notice the pattern that relatively more often academia and government are involved into development and peace activities. At the same time, the number of national NGOs prevails across all pillars.
Challenges and support needed in operationalizing the HDP Nexus approach
Support needed with regards to the HDPN approach
Most operations (21) expressed the need for support related to the operationalizing and advancing the HDPN approach. According to the need expressed from the field, the support should be provided by the global Food Security Cluster support team (18 operations), donors (16 operations), development actors (14 operations), Cluster lead agencies in country (11), academia (10), International financial institutions (9), government (8).
What are the main challenges and what support would be needed
To identify the key challenges in operationalizing and advancing the HDPN approach, open-ended questions were asked with regards to the different aspects of this approach. It allowed not to limit the coordinators with suggested options, look widely at the challenges and potential solutions that could be identified in the field.
Understanding the concept of HDPN
While in some countries an understanding of HDPN approach already exists (i.e. Somalia, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Venezuela), in majority of contexts there is a need for guidance on how to implement it in practice, especially in the field. In other contexts, there is a need for clear definition of Nexus approach for humanitarian actors. The key challenge related to understanding the HDPN approach is the unclear vision of how the humanitarian actors can link with development and peace actors and activities without stepping out of the humanitarian mandate. A significant challenge is the lack of a national strategy and a common understanding of what HDPN is.
In conflict settings, particularly where there is a need to establish formal peace processes ("big 'P'"), it can be challenging to clearly define and implement peace and development activities. As a result, the potential to apply the Nexus approach may be limited, which can hinder the integration of the Nexus approach.
Thus, to overcome these challenges the possible solutions could be:
Development of clear guidance for humanitarian actors on advancing the HDPN approach would allow to have a common vision on the HDPN and how to approach it operationally. Clarifying what is the fine line between development actions and humanitarian assistance and what is to be done to achieve the triple nexus.
Organizing workshops, joint meetings with HDPN stakeholders, and capacity building events for partners, including those on HDPN programming and coordination. More tools on how to implement the HDPN approach can be useful. Meetings organized by gFSC team to showcase good practical examples of HDPN programming in the FSC would be helpful.
Promoting sharing needs assessments, success stories, lessons learned. Regular dissemination of information related to HDPN among partners, OCHA, government and donors.
Adopting national strategy at the RC/HC level in jointly with development, humanitarian and peace actors
Building HDP coordination mechanisms
Even if the humanitarian community recognizes the concept of HDPN both in theory and practical terms, the key setback is getting all of the key partners around the table. The lack of formal joint coordination mechanism bringing all the HNDP actors (humanitarian and development actors, including the government) persists in majority of contexts.
For effective functionality these mechanisms should be strengthened at both national and regional levels. The coordinators stated that either there are separate coordination platforms and a need for synchronization is required, or lack of understanding if there are coordination platforms for development and peace actors.
The lack of understanding of HDPN concept and how humanitarians can coordinate with development and peace actors is also an impediment for effective HDP coordination.
In some contexts, the process of building the HDP coordination mechanism is already in progress led by the RC/HC Office in conjunction with the government. For the operations which are at the beginning of establishing the HDPN coordination, support in forms of sharing experience of more advanced contexts and good practices would be helpful.
The support suggested by the coordinators with regards to HDP coordination mechanisms are:
Strengthening these mechanisms at both national and regional levels
Mapping of active HDP actors and activities is considered to be the starting point for building the HDP coordination mechanisms.
Clear governmental policies on HDPN are available.
The solutions should be also undertaken at the intersectoral level. Strengthen capacities/workshops with OCHA team, ICCG, partners to provide key inputs in operationalization of HDPN approach. Also try to engage with UNDP at HCT level, as in many contexts they implement various projects with the government. All sectors need to be involved in the coordination with the leadership of the HC. By ensuring a strong coordination we would be able to avoid the situation where many actors operate in silos.
gFSC can also play a role by sharing examples on how this coordination can be enhanced, providing strategic and practical guidance on how to integrate HDPN in ongoing interventions, particularly on coordination arrangements.
Even though the overall drivers of food insecurity in the countries of operation are well understood, especially in contexts with established IPC and Cadre Harmonisé analysis, the need for in-depth assessment with regards to the specificities of each location (at the more granular level) persists. Coordinators also highlight the need for stronger coordination on assessment and analysis.
Once the understanding of HDPN concept is clear, joint needs analysis exercise can be conducted, which would also feed advocacy efforts for government and donors.
In some operations, there are separate context, risk and need analyses. Peace pillar is also a dimension not understood yet and there is a need for more qualitative and quantitative research to inform the measurement of peace and social cohesion indicators (Venezuela, Niger).
Support required in joint analysis:
Tools to conduct analysis.
Capacity building of actors on conducting the analysis
Joint analysis of food security outcomes is required in terms of acute and chronic food insecurity.
For joint planning, minimum requirements are reliable needs assessment, multiannual programing and funding. Joint planning would allow to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure consistency in assistance between humanitarian response and more sustainable solutions.
One of the possible pathways by the HDP community to apply the people-centered principle is the graduation approach, through which the joint planning envisages referrals, and institutions working throughout the process. For example, in Ukraine, some vulnerable households have perfectly utilized the grants and need additional funds to excel or scale up, which the emergency actors find difficult to fund, but development or recovery actors could. By referring such needs to recovery and development actors, the identification and training process can be shortened, and employment can be created. Joint planning and implementation are needed for the transition of humanitarian caseloads to development actors.
To initiate joint planning, support and guidance are needed on how funding can be mobilized to support HDPN interventions. Also, more tools on how to lead joint planning are required, as among cluster current and potential partners there are those with different interests, mandates.
Among key challenges in joint planning are the different timeframes on which humanitarian and development interventions take place, and different priorities across various stakeholders in the sector.
Joint planning, workplan harmonization and implementation also require significant capacity building.
Joint programmes are considered often like those which should include government, UNDP and other development actors in the process as part of good practice in HDPN coordination and successful projects.
In some countries, the HDPN involves larger stakeholders than the FSC and the dynamics are out of control the FSC.
Effective monitoring framework of HDP programmes should include common indicators to track the impact of HDPN interventions.
The mapping of HDPN actors is an important activity as it facilitates the advancing of the other components of the HDPN approach, including MEAL.
Even in countries where the HDP mapping has been initiated (including those five as part of the GNAFC initiative), nonetheless MEAL is needed to document the concrete outcomes of the joint approach.
To ensure effective HDP coordination, there is a need of stronger coordination on data sharing.
The responses from coordinators witnessed that almost all the cluster partners agree with the necessity to move forward the HDP Nexis approach. However, one of the issue to operationalize it is lack of financial support to joint initiatives. For successful joint advocacy efforts, we should ensure that there are joint statements on needs, based on joint needs analyses.
Coordinators also highlighted the crucial role of governments in joint advocacy and financing, if the governments opens-up to going beyond humanitarian. There are already multiple development programmes on ground, the issue is we are not aware, and the HDP mapping could reduce this gap.
In many contexts financing is an issue as the three dimensions of HDP are being perceived separately by donors too. In some countries, even if the joint advocacy exercises took place, ensuring funding could be a significant challenge.
Therefore, there is a need for a common vision for the entire HDP community, including implementing organization, donors, government and civil societies, and encouraging complementarity in interventions for maximum impact. Currently this part requires more capacity building efforts, including raising donors’ awareness on the necessity to fund joint projects.
In light of the recent boundary setting initiative initiated by OCHA, as there is a move towards tighter prioritization of humanitarian funding, joint advocacy for HDP interventions becomes even more crucial.
Summary and overall recommendations
The report provides an overview of the status of the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (HDPN) approach across 27 countries where the Food Security Cluster (FSC) is established. It highlights progress in establishing coordination between HDP actors, with established to some extent HDP coordination in 22 operations. General perception from the FSC country teams of Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (HDPN) is that it is a way of working that has the potential to bring significant benefits to various stakeholders.
However, challenges persist, including weak coordination mechanisms, lack of data sharing, and fragmentation among humanitarian, development, and peace actors. Numerous challenges are related to financial support, the engagement of the donors, volatility of contexts, lack of understanding from stakeholders, the separation between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding technical and financial actors, lack of an effective coordination mechanism, lack of knowledge from humanitarian community on what the development and even more the peace dimension envisages. The report emphasizes the need for enhanced coordination, alignment of activities, and clarity on roles to maximize impact and effectively address protracted crises.
Recommendations include the development of clear guidance for humanitarian actors, strengthening coordination mechanisms, promoting joint analysis and planning, drawing on best practices, and advocating for joint funding to support HDPN interventions. Additionally, capacity-building efforts and engagement with governments and donors are essential to advance the HDPN approach and achieve sustainable outcomes.
HOME I OVERVIEW I OPERATIONALIZATION I PARTNERS PRESENCE I SUPPORT NEEDED I SUMMARY