Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:12:02.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ICRC and the “humanitarian–development–peace nexus” discussion

In conversation with Filipa Schmitz Guinote, ICRC Policy Adviser

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2020

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the past five years, various developments in the international aid policy sphere have resurfaced a decades-old discussion about the link between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts – the so-called “triple nexus”. This discussion focuses on protracted conflicts and fragile settings, as these are environments where humanitarian funding and response are overstretched and where development and peace struggle to take hold.

Three important reference points in this policy environment are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),1 the Agenda for Humanity2 and the twin United Nations (UN) resolutions on sustaining peace.3 These various commitments have been driving development actors to seek ways to engage earlier and remain present in conflict-affected areas.4 They have mobilized many donors and organizations around a vision in which humanitarian action works to reduce needs, risks and vulnerability, in addition to responding to needs,5 and they have spurred the UN system into organizational reforms to ensure a system-wide coherent effort towards the SDGs, including in places affected by conflict.6 They have also been accompanied by renewed calls for, and efforts towards, greater transparency, efficiency, accountability, collaboration and results across the international aid system.

Efforts to achieve the right synergy between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts have again regained momentum globally. But they have also raised concerns within the humanitarian community about a shrinking space for neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian action during armed conflict.

In this Q&A, Policy Adviser Filipa Schmitz Guinote discusses the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) policy reflections on the interface between humanitarian action, development and peace, and the so-called “triple nexus” discussion. She unpacks some of the conceptual and practical tensions around humanitarian principles and humanitarian identity in the interaction between humanitarian, development and peace actors. She also outlines the rationale behind the ICRC's work with affected people in protracted conflicts, against the backdrop of an ICRC Institutional Strategy which commits the organization to building sustainable humanitarian impact with affected people and working with others.

Keywords

humanitarian responsehumanitarian–development dividehumanitarian–development–peace nexusprotracted conflicthumanitarian principlespartnerships
Type
Humanitarian-development nexus
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 101 , Issue 912: Protracted conflict , December 2019 , pp. 1051 - 1066
Copyright
Copyright © icrc 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Filipa Schmitz Guinote is a Policy Adviser in the ICRC's Policy and Humanitarian Diplomacy Division. She guides and supports the institution's policy reflection and external engagement on issues related to the long-term consequences of conflict and violence, including the question of missing persons, access to education and the links between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts more broadly.

References

1 UNGA Res. 70/1, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015.

2 One Humanity: Shared Responsibility: Report of UN Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit, UN Doc. A/70/709, 2 February 2016, Annex, “Agenda for Humanity”.

3 UNGA Res. 70/262, “Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture”, UN Doc. A/RES/70/262, 27 April 2016; UNSC Res. 2282, UN Doc.S/RES/2282 (2016), 27 April 2016.

4 See, for instance, Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, OECD/LEGAL/5019, 2020; World Bank Group. Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–2025, Washington, DC, 2020Google Scholar.

5 The Grand Bargain launched at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul has sought to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action along these lines. This agreement initially gathered a group of thirty-five donors and humanitarian organizations, including the ICRC and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. As of 2020, it has over sixty signatories. See The Grand Bargain: A Shared Commitment to Better Service People in Need, Istanbul, 23 May 2016.

6 UNGA Res. 72/279, “Repositioning of the United Nations Development System in the Context of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development of the United Nations System”, UN Doc. A/RES/72/279, 31 May 2018.

7 ICRC, “ICRC Assistance Policy”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 855, 2004Google Scholar.

8 ICRC, “ICRC Protection Policy”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 871, 2008Google Scholar.

9 For an overview of the different stages of the policy reflection on the link between relief and development, see Joanna Macrae and Adele Harmer (eds), Beyond the Continuum: The Changing Role of Aid Policy in Protracted Crises, Humanitarian Practice Group (HPG) Report No. 18, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, July 2004; Mosel, Irina and Levine, Simon, Remaking the Case for Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development, HPG Report, ODI, London, March 2014Google Scholar; Slim, Hugo, “Joining What Belongs Together? The Triple Nexus and the Struggle for Policy Synthesis”, Rural 21, Vol. 53, 2019, pp. 6–10Google Scholar.

10 An illustration of this evolution is the two European Commission communications on “Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development” issued in 1996 and 2001 (COM (96) 153 Final, 30 April 1996; COM (2001) 153 Final, 23 April 2001).

11 For an overview of the notion of resilience from a donor perspective, see Department for International Development, Topic Guide: What Is Resilience?, London, May 2016.

12 See, in particular, Simon Levine, Adam Pain, Sarah Bailey and Lilianne Fan, The Relevance of ‘Resilience’?, HPG Policy Brief No. 49, ODI, London, September 2012; Jonathan Whittall, Mit Philips and Michiel Hofman, “Building Resilience by Deconstructing Humanitarian Aid”, Médecins Sans Frontières Blog, 6 February 2014. For an overview of the resilience debate, see Jérémie Labbé, “Humanitarian Aid vs Resilience Debate Should Put Priorities in Context”, International Peace Institute Blog, 28 March 2014.

13 Hilhorst, Dorothea, “Classical Humanitarianism and Resilience Humanitarianism: Making Sense of the Two Brands of Humanitarian Action”, Journal of International Humanitarian Action, Vol. 3, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 The Humanitarian Exchange and Research Centre in Geneva (HERE-Geneva) conducted a research project on the question of mandates between 2018 and 2020 which highlights this diversity clearly. See Montemurro, Marzia and Wendt, Karin, Unpacking Humanitarianism, HERE-Geneva, April 2020Google Scholar.

15 For an articulation of the link between assistance, protection and legal work on urban services, see ICRC, Urban Services in Protracted Armed Conflict: A Call for a Better Approach to Assisting Affected People, Geneva, 2014Google Scholar.

16 HERE-Geneva highlights this operational adaptation in a striking way in its case studies on Mali and the Central African Republic, having compared the stated goals of various organizations that began work in those countries during a crisis and stayed on afterwards. See Montemurro, Marzia and Wendt, Karin, The Limits of Labels: HERE “Mandates Study” Mali Report, HERE-Geneva, 2018, Annex 1Google Scholar; Montemurro, Marzia and Wendt, Karin, From Macro to Micro: HERE “Mandates” Study Central African Republic Report, HERE-Geneva, 2019, Annex 3Google Scholar.

17 In 2015, the ICRC removed the term “emergency” from its annual appeal to better reflect this dual operational time frame. See ICRC, Protracted Conflict and Humanitarian Action: Some Recent ICRC Experiences, Geneva, 2016, p. 4Google Scholar. In 2002, the ICRC developed internal guidance on its role and operational adaptation in “periods of transition”. See Harroff-Tavel, Marion, “Do Wars Ever End? The Work of the International Committee of the Red Cross When the Guns Fall Silent”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85, No. 851, 2003Google Scholar.

18 M. Harroff-Tavel, above note 17.

19 UN Security Council Resolution 2462 on counterterrorism acknowledges this issue. It recognizes the need to ensure that its provisions are implemented in a manner consistent with IHL and urges States to take into account the effect of counterterrorism measures on “exclusively humanitarian activities” carried out by “impartial humanitarian actors”. UNSC Res. 2462, UN Doc. S/RES/2462 (2019), March 2019.

20 See, for instance, Monica de Castellarnau and Velina Stoianova, Emergency Gap: Humanitarian Action Critically Wounded, Emergency Gap Series No. 1, Médecins Sans Frontières, April 2016; Marc DuBois, The Cost of Coherence, Emergency Gap Series No. 4, Médecins Sans Frontières, December 2016.

21 For a detailed analysis of this case, see Terry, Fiona, “The International Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan: Reasserting the Neutrality of Humanitarian Action”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, No. 881, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 See, for instance, OECD, above note 5.

23 See Hugo Slim, “Nexus Thinking in Humanitarian Policy: How Does Everything Fit Together on the Ground?”, Keynote Address to the World Food Program Annual Partnership Consultations, Rome, 25 October 2017.

24 ICRC, Institutional Strategy 2019–2022, Geneva, 2019.

25 Anderson, Mary B., Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 1999Google Scholar; ICRC, Professional Standards for Protection Work, Geneva, 2018Google Scholar.

26 For a discussion on the areas of convergence and divergence between humanitarian protection and protection of civilians, see Metcalfe, Victoria, Protecting Civilians? The Interaction between International Military and Humanitarian Actors, HPG Working Paper, ODI, London, August 2012Google Scholar.

27 The OECD's DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus acknowledges the importance of diplomatic influence when it calls on Development Assistance Committee members to leverage political influence to support, inter alia, “humanitarian access and outcomes”. OECD, above note 5, Section III.3b.