Your Views and Insights following the Doing Nexus Differently paper

Within the whole sector and wider profession there continues to be a discussion about the best approaches to linking humanitarian action with development. The current challenges in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region and the whole world require much more efficient and effective action, as many societies deal with ongoing (and reoccurring) fragility and instability.

- Some practitioners have argued for more effective sequencing the (seemingly) two phases of relief and development (e.g. traditional LRRD), while others promote a NON-linear and simultaneous approach to connecting humanitarian action and development (e.g. Contiguum).
- More recently, more extensive calls are made for joining up analysis, planning, and implementation of Humanitarian and Developmental actions to reach more impact on the ground (Double Nexus approach).
- Other actors are connecting this Double Nexus with questions of peacebuilding/peacekeeping and security, creating a Triple Nexus.

CARE through the Regional (MENA) Applied Economic Empowerment Hub has undertaken a practical learning and reflection process around this topic. Parts of the engagement process have been webinars, online surveys and discussion sessions with global and regional thought leaders. In September 2018, the Hub has produced a detailed research paper as well as a Summary Paper (available online) with the aim to present key findings, promote Guiding Principles based on the engagement process and further engage sectoral thought leader.

Join us in this discussion and learning process! Please let us hear your views on and experiences with this topic, and use the comment spaces to add additional thoughts.

Question Title

* 1. Please answer the following demographic questions.

All data collected in this survey will be used anonymously to learn about the current status in the whole sector. If CARE sees there is a good case or practical learning in your data we will contact you to discuss options for building on your data in upcoming events or publications. If you have great practical learning or stories from your practice concerning Nexus programs or integrated projects, please share with us and follow this link to submit a case study or learning story.

Question Title

* 2. The following two questions consider the different approaches to linking Humanitarian action with Development, as mentioned at the top of the survey. Based on your own experience when working with relief and development, please rate the different approaches in the table below.

Current Application of these approaches in the sector
Please rate the below approaches from never applied in current programming to (almost) always applied in current programming in your organization (or the sector if applicable).

  Never applied Almost never applied Neutral Sometimes applied (almost) Always applied
Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time.
Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another.
Adopting non-linear and simultaneous Relief with Development approaches (but we do not necessarily have joint structures; we do not conduct joint analysis/ planning/etc. (contiguum)
Linking/joining humanitarian action with development not just with frameworks but also in our operational model (e.g. in monitoring and evaluation systems; joint/integrated analysis for immediate needs&root causes; flexible funding; joint or integrated organizational structure; partnerships that enable us to implement both emergency and development; etc.). (Double Nexus)
Linking/joining humanitarian action with development in addition to the third dimension of peace and security, also in terms of theoretical, practical, and business and operational models mentioned above. (Triple Nexus)

Question Title

* 3. Looking at the same approaches, what is the future relevance of these approaches for your organization or the whole sector?

Please rate the below approaches from NOT relevant at all to highly relevant for the sector's programming in the future, especially in conflict-affected settings in MENA and beyond (e.g., Syria, Gaza, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.)

  NOT relevant at all Mostly irrelevant  Neutral Mostly relevant Extremely relevant
Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time.
Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another.
Adopting non-linear and simultaneous Relief with Development approaches (but we do not necessarily have joint structures; we do not conduct joint analysis/ planning/etc. (Contiguum approach)
Linking/joining humanitarian action with development not just with frameworks but also in our operational model (e.g. in Monitoring and Evaluation systems; joint/integrated analysis for immediate needs&root causes; flexible funding; joint or integrated organizational structure; partnerships that enable us to implement both emergency and development; etc.). (Double Nexus)
Linking/joining humanitarian action with development in addition to the third dimension of peace and security, also in terms of theoretical, practical, and business and operational models mentioned above. (Triple Nexus)

Question Title

* 4. From your knowledge and experience, do you believe that humanitarian and development responses can get politicized at the local, national or international levels, especially in contexts where there is conflict or where there are non-accountable state actors?

Question Title

* 5. The latest development (though not new) is that there is a movement towards Triple Nexus in thinking and programming; meaning a purposeful connection of humanitarian action, development, and/or issues of security&peace. Do you believe that this is a great opportunity or is a threat for social justice, especially in conflict-affected settings?

Question Title

* 6. The final section of the Paper (full research paper and the summary paper published by CARE's Regional Applied Economic Empowerment Hub) presents a set of Key Messages / Guiding Principles building on the evidence and learning in the sector. Please fill in the table and use the spaces provided to add any comments on these Guiding Principles. 

How much do you agree with the following Guiding Principles / Key Messages?

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Localization – making use of bottom up approaches that strengthen local capacities, build local partners and put our target groups in the driver’s seat.
Local ownership and participation; making this practical and feasible at all steps of the project cycle, especially stressing the role of women in all phases of programs to systematically include the voices of our partners and impact groups
Evidence-based analysis informs design, implementation, and evaluation; makes smart use of analysis tools to get deep understanding of social norms, gender relations (and how they change in crisis!), power relations, political economy, and conflict dynamics.
Gender and Women’s voices: supporting real and relevant engagement with women in all parts of our programming (looking beyond the numbers towards meaningful engagement).
Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform.
Adaptive Management as an agile management approach that can facilitate flexible (Nexus) programs, responding to changes and new information swiftly to stay relevant and impactful.
Piloting through e.g. cross-sectoral teams is encouraged to test new (management) structures that enable Nexus programs when organizational-wide restructuring is not an easy option.
Reinvesting in Program Quality: strong program quality is needed especially with regards to MEAL to allow organizational learning and innovation. Program quality should also integrate all of the above guiding principles in its content, guiding tools, and purpose!

Question Title

* 7. Have you seen other initiatives/tools/projects/program approaches at your organization or in the sector, where teams have linked humanitarian action with development (and peace/security) successfully, either in business model/theory or practical implementation?

(An example is the community Village Saving and Lending Associations (VSLAs) that link emergency, development, and peacebuilding through supporting social cohesion among host populations and refugees. These type of VSLAs also play a role in humanitarian responses as well as in development (mainly but not limited) through providing loans that can be used for business start-up)

Question Title

* 8. What do you believe is/are the most important barrier(s) to implementing Nexus programming in your organization or in the sector?

Question Title

* 9. Additional comments or feedback 

T