In the complex and ever-evolving landscape of international aid, the “triple nexus” — an integrated approach combining humanitarian, development, and peace efforts— has emerged as a strategy for improving response to crises. While the humanitarian-development nexus has long been a focus, the addition of peace as a third pillar has stirred both hope and debate.
By addressing root causes of conflict and striving to mitigate or prevent them entirely, the approach aims to foster sustainable development while meeting urgent humanitarian needs. Yet, as recent research highlights, the path to integrating peace within the nexus is fraught with challenges that demand systemic and cultural shifts in how aid is conceived, financed, and delivered. Here, we share findings and reflections based on our recent research on this topic.
Why Peace Matters in the Triple Nexus
Since the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, the triple nexus has gained prominence as a response to the limitations of traditional humanitarian and development frameworks. Previous models often faltered in areas affected by social conflict, where progress in relief or development efforts was frequently undermined by violence or instability. Incorporating peace into the nexus is seen as essential for ensuring long-term sustainability. But what does “peace” mean in this context? How should it interact with humanitarian neutrality or development strategies?
These questions are not merely theoretical. For communities facing chronic crises, peace is not just the absence of conflict, but a foundation for resilient societies. The triple nexus, in principle, seeks to align short-term humanitarian goals, mid-term development objectives, and long-term peacebuilding efforts in a cohesive strategy. However, this ambitious alignment requires navigating deep-seated challenges in policy, practice, and funding.
The Core Challenges
The inclusion of peace in the triple nexus introduces three primary challenges:
- Humanitarian Neutrality at Risk:
Traditional humanitarian principles, particularly neutrality and impartiality, face tension when peace initiatives are added. Peace inherently involves political processes —peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and peacemaking— that may align with certain factions or state actors. This alignment can jeopardize the perception of neutrality essential for humanitarian access and effectiveness. For practitioners on the ground, balancing these competing imperatives is often a tightrope walk. - Mismatched Timescales:
Humanitarian efforts are typically immediate and short-term, addressing urgent needs such as food, shelter, and medical care. Development projects, meanwhile, focus on longer-term goals like education and economic growth. Adding peace to the mix further complicates this timeline, as peacebuilding can take decades to yield tangible results. Projects operating under the triple nexus must find ways to harmonize these differing timelines without compromising the urgency of humanitarian action or the depth of peacebuilding. - Funding Modalities and Flexibility:
Donor funding structures often remain rigid, tailored to specific sectors or short-term projects. Yet the triple nexus demands flexibility to shift resources dynamically between humanitarian, development, and peace needs based on evolving circumstances. Whether responding to a sudden outbreak of violence or a natural disaster, aid systems must adapt, requiring donors to rethink financial strategies. Equally, measuring success across the nexus is challenging; traditional metrics may not capture the interconnected outcomes of integrated approaches.
Lessons and Opportunities
Despite these challenges, the triple nexus also offers significant opportunities to improve aid effectiveness. In Kenya, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, where projects examined in the study were implemented, the nexus approach revealed several key insights:
- Collaborative Programming: When peacebuilding, humanitarian, and development actors coordinate effectively, their combined efforts can address overlapping needs more comprehensively. For instance, creating livelihood programs in post-conflict areas can simultaneously stabilize communities and provide the foundation for lasting peace.
- Adaptable Systems: Building adaptable frameworks that allow for the seamless transition of funds and resources across nexus components is critical. Innovative funding models and locally-driven partnerships emerged as promising practices, although their adoption remains inconsistent.
- Local Engagement: Empowering local actors to lead in defining and implementing peace within the triple nexus is essential. National and local priorities must guide international interventions to ensure relevance and sustainability.
The Road Ahead
The triple nexus is not a one-size-fits-all solution, nor is it without weaknesses. Its applicability varies depending on the context, with protracted conflicts demanding a greater emphasis on all three components. Furthermore, achieving success requires a shift in the international aid system toward more principled, flexible, and community-centred approaches.
As the research underscores, there remains widespread confusion over what peace means within the nexus and how it should manifest in practice. Donors, policymakers, and practitioners must collaborate to clarify these concepts and set realistic expectations. Additionally, the nexus must prioritize collective outcomes over individual mandates, breaking down silos that hinder progress.
Ultimately, the triple nexus challenges us to think beyond immediate needs, envisioning a world where humanitarian relief, sustainable development, and enduring peace are not separate endeavours, but interconnected facets of a unified approach. It is a bold and complex vision, but one that contributes to transforming how we respond to crises and build more peaceful societies.
Keywords: humanitarian, development, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, peace and conflict, donors
Rodrigo Mena Fluhmann
Dr. Rodrigo Mena Fluhmann is an Assistant Professor of Disasters and Humanitarian Governance, also serving as the Deputy Director of the Humanitarian Studies Centre (HSCOpens external) and Coordinator of the Safety and Security Research Initiative(SSRi). With almost twenty years of experience, his focus has been on disaster governance (disaster response and risk reduction), climate change, humanitarian action, and environmental sociology, particularly in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable (FCV) settings. He teachs courses covering humanitarian, disaster risk reduction, and complex emergency governance; research methodology, both quantitative and mixed methods; and research ethics, safety, and security.
At the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), he co-coordinates the Humanitarian Governance project (HUM-GOV), funded by a European Research Council (ERC) advanced grant. This project delves into the evolving dynamics of humanitarian governance, with special attention to civil society actors and crisis-affected populations. Additionally, he contributes to the coordination of the Observatorio Humanitario de América Latina y el Caribe (OH-LACOpens external).
Summer Brown
Sylvia Brown
Sylvia Brown is a Conflict Advisor and International Development specialist with twenty years experience advising international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), local civil society organisations, UK government and UN agencies. She has a special interest in the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (Triple) Nexus, Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding.
She is experienced in political economy analysis, conflict analysis and gendered conflict analysis, using primary data collection (including in hard to access areas) as well as secondary data analysis (from academic and 'grey' literature. She has experience applying these skills in Myanmar, Thailand, Pakistan, Kenya, Indonesia and the Philippines. She has a special interest in women and youth in peacebuilding, community-based peacebuilding, local and customary governance and forced migration issues. She is also experienced in organisational development of civil society organisations and am familiar working in conflict-sensitive environments among refugees, multiple power-holders, political upheaval and international humanitarian interventions.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://peacenews.com/the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-the-humanitarian-development-peace-nexus/&media=https://peacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/pexels-ahmed-akacha-3313934-10629421-scaled.jpg&description=The "triple nexus" —an integrated approach combining humanitarian, development, and peace efforts— has emerged as a strategy.){kind=link}