Your Reflections on DND: To Link or NOT to Link Humanitarian Action with Development and Peace

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.

Your Name

Your Email

Organization(s) you work with

Country/countries you are (primarily) located

Country/countries you are (primarily) supporting or programming in (designing, implementing, monitoring, etc.)

Primary sector your work focuses on (humanitarian, development, peace, mixed, others)

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.	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Never applied	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Almost never applied	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Neutral	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Sometimes applied	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. (almost) Always applied
Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another.	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Never applied	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Almost never applied	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Neutral	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Sometimes applied	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. (almost) Always applied
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)	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) Never applied	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) Almost never applied	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) Neutral	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) Sometimes applied	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) (almost) Always applied
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 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) Never applied	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) Almost never applied	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) Neutral	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) Sometimes applied	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) (almost) Always applied
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)	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) Never applied	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) Almost never applied	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) Neutral	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) Sometimes applied	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) (almost) Always applied

Other feedback or comments on these approaches and their categories/application?

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.	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. NOT relevant at all	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Mostly irrelevant	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Neutral	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Mostly relevant	Keeping humanitarian action separate from development most of the time. Extremely relevant
Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another.	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. NOT relevant at all	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Mostly irrelevant	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Neutral	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Mostly relevant	Linking/sequencing phases of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) mostly in a linear way - one phase after another. Extremely relevant
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)	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) NOT relevant at all	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) Mostly irrelevant	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) Neutral	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) Mostly relevant	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) Extremely relevant
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 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) NOT relevant at all	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) Mostly irrelevant	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) Neutral	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) Mostly relevant	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) Extremely relevant
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)	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) NOT relevant at all	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) Mostly irrelevant	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) Neutral	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) Mostly relevant	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) Extremely relevant

Other feedback or comments on these approaches and their categories/application?

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?

Not at all

No - in most cases not

Maybe in exceptional cases

Yes - in most cases

Definitely - in almost all contexts where there is human-made conflict and where there is poor governance (non-accountable state actors)

Could you explain where are the main tension points from your perspective (for example, humanitarian principles and how these are practically applied, state-actor involvement, donor relations, local partner selection, lack of civil society involvement, others)?

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?

Mostly a (very) dangerous trend that threatens humanitarian principles, of development assistance and independence of target communities.

Trend with significant concerns for the neutral humanitarian and development actors, especially in conflict-affected settings.

It can work out to be either side (positive or negative), depending on local context, organizational structure or implementing staff (or others).

Mostly positive opportunities; since, when appropriately used, there will be options in programming for reducing security tensions and contributing to stability/peace.

Great opportunity; security/peace concerns should not be ignored in the planning and target groups is often in need for peace & security just as much as development thus good programming is able to reach both.

Could you add more about how/where do you see this in your own work? When does or would this create tension s or possibilities in your context, from your perspective?

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.	Localization – making use of bottom up approaches that strengthen local capacities, build local partners and put our target groups in the driver’s seat. Strongly Disagree	Localization – making use of bottom up approaches that strengthen local capacities, build local partners and put our target groups in the driver’s seat. Disagree	Localization – making use of bottom up approaches that strengthen local capacities, build local partners and put our target groups in the driver’s seat. Neutral	Localization – making use of bottom up approaches that strengthen local capacities, build local partners and put our target groups in the driver’s seat. 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. Strongly Agree
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	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 Strongly Disagree	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 Disagree	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 Neutral	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 Agree	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 Strongly Agree
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.	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. Strongly Disagree	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. Disagree	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. Neutral	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. Agree	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. Strongly Agree
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).	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). Strongly Disagree	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). Disagree	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). Neutral	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). Agree	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). Strongly Agree
Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform.	Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform. Strongly Disagree	Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform. Disagree	Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform. Neutral	Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform. Agree	Resilience should be seen as a major connecting concept in our programming, including communities' capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform. Strongly Agree
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.	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. Strongly Disagree	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. Disagree	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. Neutral	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. Agree	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. Strongly Agree
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.	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. Strongly Disagree	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. Disagree	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. Neutral	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. Agree	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. Strongly Agree
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!	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! Strongly Disagree	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! Disagree	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! Neutral	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! Agree	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! Strongly Agree

Please explain or comment as needed.

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?

Restrictions regarding funding

Lack of clarity on theory and concepts

Organizational buy-in

Lack of practical tools and guidance

Lack of human resources in my organization or the market with the needed skills

Other (please specify)

Question Title

Question Title

Question Title

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

Question Title

Question Title

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