No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Towards common ground: Strategies for effective collaboration between the humanitarian and peacebuilding communities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2024
Abstract
In an era marked by growing conflicts, prolonged humanitarian needs and less donor funding, collaboration between the humanitarian and peacebuilding sectors is essential for more effective responses. This paper examines the complexities of fostering such collaboration, emphasizing the importance of integrated multisectoral approaches capable of addressing both immediate necessities and long-term peace and development objectives. While recent initiatives such as the humanitarian–development–peace nexus framework and the United Nations Secretary-General's Agenda for Humanity reflect progress toward integrated approaches, substantial collaborative challenges persist. This paper identifies three key entry points for mutual learning between humanitarian and peace actors. Firstly, it discusses a “peace-responsive” approach to humanitarian activities that proactively contributes to “peace-positive” outcomes. Secondly, it emphasizes the need for the peace sector to learn from humanitarian efforts regarding accountability to affected communities. Thirdly, it underscores the need to understand the normative foundations of each sector and their implications for joint action. Drawing on these insights, the paper offers recommendations for policy-makers and practitioners to help them advance joint approaches to humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding in conflict-affected contexts.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 106 , Issue 927: IHL & Peace , December 2024 , pp. 1088 - 1107
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Committee of the Red Cross
Footnotes
†
Rebecca Brubaker, Will Bennett and Hannah Eriksen are employed at Interpeace, an international peacebuilding organization. Opinions published in this paper reflect the authors’ views only. The authors would like to thank Alexandra Boivin for her invaluable input during each stage of the drafting process. Her insights into the humanitarian policy world and humanitarian perspectives were invaluable to drafting this piece, especially the section on principles for the peace sector. In addition, the authors would like to thank Frauke de Weijer for her review of the section on peace responsiveness and her thought leadership efforts on the intersection of the humanitarian and peace sectors. Finally, the authors are indebted to Phil Vernon for his careful review of the section on accountability. This section would not have been possible without the groundbreaking work that Phil has spearheaded in this space.
The advice, opinions and statements contained in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICRC. The ICRC does not necessarily represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in this article.
References
1 Policinski, Ellen and Kuzmanovic, Jovana, “Protracted Conflicts: The Enduring Legacy of Endless War”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 101, No. 912, 2019, p. 965CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Global Humanitarian Overview 2024, February Update (Snapshot as of 29 February 2024)”, 11 March 2024, available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-humanitarian-overview-2024-february-update-snapshot-29-february-2024 (all internet references were accessed in June 2024).
3 Angus Urquhart et al., Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2022, Development Initiatives, Bristol, July 2022.
4 IASC Results Group 4 on Humanitarian–Development Collaboration (IASC Results Group 4), Light Guidance on Collective Outcomes: Planning and Implementing the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus in Contexts of Protracted Crisis, June 2020; IASC Results Group 4, Exploring Peace within the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus (HDPN), October 2020; IASC Results Group 4, A Mapping and Analysis of Tools and Guidance on the H-P Linkages in the HDP Nexus, February 2022.
5 UN Secretary-General, One Humanity: Shared Responsibility: Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit, February 2016.
6 “With Highest Number of Violent Conflicts since Second World War, United Nations Must Rethink Efforts to Achieve, Sustain Peace, Speakers Tell Security Council”, UN News, 26 January 2023, available at: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15184.doc.htm.
7 ICRC, “Q&A: The ICRC and the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus Discussion”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 101, No. 912, 2019, p. 1053Google Scholar.
8 Melin, Molly M., “Peacebuilding: Definition, Actors, Framework, and Measurement”, in Melin, Molly M., The Building and Breaking of Peace, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vincent Chetail and Oliver Jütersonke, Peacebuilding: A Review of the Academic Literature, White Paper Series No. 13, Geneva Peacebuilding Platform, 2015, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2684002.
9 Hilhorst, Dorothea, “Classical Humanitarianism and Resilience Humanitarianism: Making Sense of Two Brands of Humanitarian Action”, Journal of International Humanitarian Action, Vol. 3, No. 15, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Ibid., p. 4.
11 Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, International Legal Frameworks for Humanitarian Action: Topic Guide, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, April 2013.
12 V. Chetail and O. Jütersonke, above note 8.
13 Interpeace, Peace Responsiveness: Delivering on the Promise of Sustaining Peace and the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus, Geneva, September 2021.
14 Ibid.
15 OECD, DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus, OECD/LEGAL/5019, 2024, p. 3.
16 Sarah Spencer Bernard, Gregory De Paepe and Cyprien Fabre, Report on the Implementation, Dissemination and Continued Relevance of the DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus, OECD, March 2024.
17 Cyprien Fabre, Humanitarian Development Coherence, OECD, Paris, 2017.
18 S. S. Bernard, G. De Paepe and C. Fabre, above note 16.
19 Ibid.
20 “With Highest Number of Violent Conflicts”, above note 6; UN Secretary-General, Chair's Summary: Standing up for Humanity: Committing to Action, Istanbul, May 2016.
21 Conflict sensitivity extends beyond “do no harm” and the minimum standard of practice to avoid causing inadvertent harm. While there is not a universally agreed-upon definition of conflict sensitivity, it generally involves integrating an awareness of conflict dynamics into the approaches of actors operating in conflict settings. The goal is to minimize the risk that their activities will exacerbate conflict dynamics by equipping actors with the necessary frameworks and tools to comprehend the context in which they operate. For more information, see O’Brien, Mary Rose, Naw, Hkinjawng (Laser) and Mon, Khin Zar, “Building a Culture of Conflict Sensitivity within a Consortium”, Development in Practice, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmeidl, Susanne, Ware, Anthony and Alberti, Claudio, “Conflict Sensitivity/Do No Harm (DNH) in Development, Humanitarian, and Peacebuilding Practice – Reflections and Emerging Trends”, Development in Practice, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, Mary B., Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Anita Ernstorfer, Anne-Sofie Stockman and Frauke de Weijer, “Peace Responsiveness: A Paradigm Shift to Deliver on Conflict Sensitivity and Sustaining Peace”, Development in Practice, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2023, p. 3.
23 Ibid.
24 Interpeace, Peace Responsiveness: Delivering on the Promise of Sustaining Peace and the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus – Briefing Note, Geneva, January 2022.
25 A. Ernstorfer, A. Stockman and F. de Weijer, above note 22.
26 FAO and Interpeace, Pathways to Sustaining Peace at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2020.
27 A. Ernstorfer, A. Stockman and F. de Weijer, above note 22.
28 Ibid., p. 4.
29 Ibid.
30 Interpeace, Integrating a Peace-Responsive Approach in Humanitarian Action, Geneva, December 2022.
31 Studies show that the average humanitarian intervention/mission now extends to more than nine years and that 80% of humanitarian action occurs in protracted crises. See, for example, “Humanitarian Crises around the World Are Becoming Longer and More Complex”, EU Science Hub, 20 November 2020, available at: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/humanitarian-crises-around-world-are-becoming-longer-and-more-complex-2020-11-20_en.
32 Hugo Slim and Ariana Lopes Morey, Protracted Conflict and Humanitarian Action: Some Recent ICRC Experiences, ICRC, Geneva, 2016.
33 Summer Brown, Rodrigo Mena and Sylvia Brown, “The Peace Dilemma in the Triple Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities for the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Approach”, Development in Practice, April 2024.
34 Marie Müller et al., How Can the Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus Work from the Bottom Up?, Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies, 2024.
35 See the references cited in above note 4.
36 See the references cited in above note 4.
37 Positive peace has been defined in many ways. To take just one example, the Institute for Economics and Peace defines it as creating “an optimal environment for human potential to flourish” as well as “the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies”. Institute for Economics and Peace, Positive Peace Report 2022, Sydney, January 2022, pp. 2, 4.
38 See the references cited in above note 4.
39 Interpeace, above note 30.
40 Interpeace, above note 13. See also Christoph Zürcher, “What Do We (not) Know about Development Aid and Violence? A Systematic Review”, World Development, Vol. 98, October 2017, for one of the original studies on this topic.
41 OECD, The Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus Interim Progress Review, Paris, 2022.
42 Centre for Humanitarian Leadership, Transformation in the Aid and Development Sector? Decolonising Aid, Melbourne, December 2021.
43 Interpeace, above note 30.
44 Global Humanitarian Platform, “Principles of Partnership: A Statement of Commitment”, 12 July 2007, available at: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/other/principles-partnership-global-humanitarian-platform-17-july-2007.
45 Autesserre, Severine, “International Peacebuilding and Local Success: Assumptions and Effectiveness”, International Studies Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2017, p. 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Ibid.
47 “With Highest Number of Violent Conflicts”, above note 6.
48 Beat Schweizer, “Moral Dilemmas for Humanitarianism in the Era of ‘Humanitarian’ Military Interventions”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 855, 2004, p. 555.
49 Michael Pugh, “Introduction: The Ownership of Regeneration and Peacebuilding”, in Michael Pugh (ed.), Regeneration of War-Torn Societies, St Martin's Press, New York, 2000.
50 Ibid.
51 B. Schweizer, above note 48.
52 Masayo Kondo Rossier, Linking Humanitarian Action and Peacebuilding, Graduate Institute Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding, Geneva, 2011.
53 Ibid.
54 B. Schweizer, above note 48.
55 Ibid.
56 Torunn Wimpelmann, “State-building”, in Antonio De Lauri (ed.), Humanitarianism: Keywords, Vol. 1, Brill, Leiden, 2020.
57 Brandon A. Kohrt and Bonnie N. Kaiser, “Measuring Mental Health in Humanitarian Crises: A Practitioner's Guide to Validity”, Conflict and Health, Vol. 15, No. 72, 2021.
58 Michael G. Wessels, “Do No Harm: Toward Contextually Appropriate Psychosocial Support in International Emergencies”, American Psychologist, Vol. 64, No. 8, 2009, p. 843.
59 Ibid.
60 Interpeace, above note 30.
61 See, for example, the work of the international Peace Responsiveness Facility launched by Interpeace in 2020.
62 Search for Common Ground, Rapport Etude Baseline: Project – “Mu Gina Gobe! Construisons Demain!”, 2015.
63 ICRC, ICRC Strategy 2019–2024, Geneva, June 2020.
64 A. Urquhart et al., above note 3.
65 Interpeace, above note 30.
66 Joshua Craze, “Why Humanitarians Should Stop Hiding Behind Impartiality”, The New Humanitarian, 22 August 2022, available at: www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2022/08/22/impartiality-humanitarian-aid-South-Sudan-conflict.
67 International Alert, Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance, and Peacebuilding: A Resource Pack, London, January 2004.
68 See the references cited in above note 4.
69 Phil Vernon, Background Paper: Peacebuilding and Accountability, Interpeace, Geneva, May 2023, p. 1.
70 Ibid.
71 Dorothea Hilhorst et al., “Accountability in Humanitarian Action”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2021.
72 Sarah Kenyon Lischer, “Collateral Damage: Humanitarian Assistance as a Cause of Conflict”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2003.
73 D. Hilhorst et al., above note 71.
74 CHS Alliance, On the Road to Istanbul: How Can the World Humanitarian Summit Make Humanitarian Response More Effective?, Geneva, 2 September 2015.
75 Alnoor Ebrahim, “Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs”, World Development, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2003.
76 P. Vernon, above note 69.
77 Ibid., p. 4.
78 Scott Gates, Haavard Mokleiv Nygaard and Esther Trappeniers, Conflict Recurrence, Conflict Trends, Peace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, February 2016, p. 1.
79 Jasmine-Kim Westendorf, Why Peace Processes Fail: Negotiating Insecurity after Civil War, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 2015.
80 Ibid.
81 Badran, Ramzi, “Intrastate Peace Agreements and the Durability of Peace”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2014, p. 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
82 Humanity United, “After the Handshake: Forging Quality Implementation of Peace Agreements”, 2 September 2016, available at: https://humanityunited.org/perspectives/after-the-handshake/#allow.
83 Julia Palmiano Federer et al., Beyond the Tracks? Reflections on Multitrack Approaches to Peace Processes, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Center for Security Studies ETH Zurich, Folke Bernadotte Academy and Swisspeace, January 2020.
84 Jannie Lilja and Kristine Höglund, “The Role of the External in Local Peacebuilding: Enabling Action – Managing Risk”, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2018.
85 UN, “Prospects for Women Peacebuilders Vastly Worse than Before Pandemic as Spoilers Ramp Up Action Aimed at Silencing Their Voices, Human Rights Chief Warns Security Council”, 18 January 2022, available at: https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14768.doc.htm.
86 Council on Foreign Relations, “Women's Participation in Peace Processes”, available at: www.cfr.org/womens-participation-in-peace-processes/.
87 International Civil Society Action Network, The Better Peace Tool, Washington, DC, 2014, p. 4.
88 J.-K. Westendorf, above note 79.
89 Veronique Dudouet and Andreas Schädel, “New Evidence: To Build Peace, Include Women from the Start”, United States Institute of Peace, 11 March 2021, available at: www.usip.org/publications/2021/03/new-evidence-build-peace-include-women-start.
90 J.-K. Westendorf, above note 79.
91 Interpeace is an international peacebuilding organization with thirty years of experience working in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Latin America.
92 For further information, see the Principles for Peace website, available at: https://principlesforpeace.org.
93 See the Principles for Peace website, above note 92.
94 UNGA Res. 46/182 and 58/114, “Strengthening the Coordination of Humanitarian Emergency Assistance of the United Nations”, 19 December 1991 and 5 February 2004; Proclamation of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross, Vienna, 1965; Pictet, Jean, “The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 19, No. 210, 1979Google Scholar.
95 J. Pictet, above note 94.
96 Hirblinger, Andreas T. and Landau, Dana M., “Daring to Differ? Strategies of Inclusion in Peace Making”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
97 Gabriela Galindo, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Crisis-Hit ICRC at Pains to Deliver in Ukraine”, Geneva Solutions, June 2022, available at: https://genevasolutions.news/peace-humanitarian/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-crisis-hit-icrc-at-pains-to-deliver-in-ukraine.
98 Lily Hyde, “Evacuation Challenges and Bad Optics”, The New Humanitarian, 3 May 2022, available at: www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2022/05/03/the-icrc-and-the-pitfalls-of-neutrality-in-ukraine.