Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
129
The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus:
Solving Rubik’s Cube in Policy and Practice
Diego A. Cimino
Directorate General for Development Cooperation,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation,
Rome, Italy
Abstract
Historically, the 20’s of each of the last centuries proved to be challenging years, where moments
of historical opportunities were followed by daunting global difficulties. The 20’s of this 21
st
Century clearly followed the same historical destiny, with still an uncertain ending. Even before
the Covid-19 pandemic, the geopolitical, economic, social and environmental complexities of
today’s world appeared as inter-connected as ever before. The aim of this paper is to analyze
most discussed nexuses in the international policy-making space, the so called “Humanitarian-
Development-Peace Nexus” or “Triple-Nexus”, referred to the gradual coordination, cooperation,
integration and interaction of humanitarian, development and peace actions and actors at all
levels.
Keywords: peace, sustainable development, humanitarian action, globalization, “Triple-Nexus”,
2030 Agenda
Peace and development are essential needs, reachable aspirations, complex and inter-
connected processes, as they complement and serve each other along the way.
1. Context, Trends and Definition
Over the last two decades, as effect of globalization, the concept of inter-dependence
has emerged stronger while, in parallel, the pre-existing international political and
economic structures appeared not to be able to adapt consequently to such existing
reality. As a consequence of these complexities, despite unprecedented, recorded
progresses in development, wealth and opportunities over the last two decades,
structural challenges to peace and sustainable development persisted, particularly in the
most fragile areas of the world where crisis, violence and fragility remained and, in some
cases, actually increased, hitting particularly the most vulnerable and in need.
In such a context, inter-connections and nexuses can not only better explain today’s
world dynamics than monothematic approaches or “lenses”, but they can also offer new
transformative approaches to assess and address those structural challenges, in order to
find innovative solutions and achieving peace and sustainable development as part of
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
130
one comprehensive, multi-dimensional – yet still very complex – plan of action. As a
consequence of this increased awareness, inter-connections and nexuses entered both
the policy-making and the operational spaces, while the international community is
currently attempting to face the challenges of their effective, integrated
implementation, as if being in front of a global “Rubik’s Cube”, where all the issues are
put together and one action at the same time is instrumental and affects the whole
cube.
Arguably, among the most discussed nexuses in the international policy-making
space there is the so called “Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus” or “Triple-
Nexus”, referred to the gradual coordination, cooperation, integration and interaction of
humanitarian, development and peace actions and actors at all levels. This nexus,
sometimes defined also as a ‘continuum’ between the three areas, calls for all actors to
strengthen their collaboration in a coordinated, coherent and enhanced manner,
towards effective and efficient integration or complementarity processes. This includes
more coordination and possible joint-programming and implementation, in order to
achieve collective and mutually-reinforcing outcomes fit for the challenging, multi-
dimensional contexts in which actors are called to operate for peace, development and
humanitarian action. Multilateral cooperation and relevant multilateral governance fora
constituted the ideal platform to agree on key principles and improve policy and
operational evolution of this nexus: the cube with three different dimensions to be
solved.
Data and evidence prove, if needed, that a less peaceful world is a much more
challenging place to fight inequality and achieve sustainable development and, at the
same time, it is harder to build or maintain peace in a world filled with inequalities,
injustices and lack of sustainable development. According to the Global Peace Index of
the Institute of Economics and Peace, since 2008 global peacefulness has deteriorated
by 3.76%, with more than the 40% of Countries in the world recording a deterioration1.
The same Institute, on its 2018 ‘The Economic Value of Peace’2, reports that in 2017 the
economic impact of violence to the global economy was $14.76 trillion3, equivalent to
12.4 % of global gross domestic product (GDP). According to the same Institute, the
same value in 2019 increased to $ 14.5 trillion.
The inter-relation between violence, economic prosperity and social justice is multi-
directional: while conflict and violence have negative implications for economy and
prosperity, at the same time, high levels of poverty or low levels of social services are
conducive to increased instability, which can erupt in conflict. This vicious cycle of social
insecurity, poverty and instability, repeats its formula various combinations: Countries
1http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/
2http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2018/11/Economic-Value-of-Peace-2018.pdf
3In constant purchasing power parity (PPP)
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
131
experiencing different degrees of violence face poverty at significantly higher rates;
people in unstable, fragile or conflict-affected countries are more than twice as likely to
be under-nourished or facing other forms of vulnerability as those in other developing
countries; children in conflict zones are more than three times less likely to attend
school, and twice as likely to die before the age of five; nine out of 10 countries with the
lowest human development index have experienced conflict within the past 20 years4.
Recently, in a joint landmark report (“Pathways for Peace”) the UN and the World
Bank estimate that by 2030 over half of the world’s poor will be living in Countries
affected by high level of violence5. Additionally, in this new and more challenging Covid-
19 world, according to the most recent World Bank estimates6, between 71 million and
100 million people could fall again in extreme poverty in 2020 only.
From the humanitarian point of view, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) has recently highlighted that of almost 89 million people (1% of the global
population, 40% of which are children) currently forcibly displaced, 45.7 million are
internally displaced, 26 million people refugees, 4.2 million asylum seekers7 and that
about 85% of the refugees are hosted in developing Countries. This creates an
overwhelming pressure on already fragile, least developed or developing Countries such
as Lebanon, Jordan, Chad, Uganda, Sudan, which are currently five of the top six per
capita refugee-hosting countries. Furthermore, it has to be noted that 68% of the total
refugee population in the world comes just from 5 Countries, most of them conflict-
affected: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar. In the context of
multiple protracted crises, with refugee camps and other settlements standing for
decades, the scale of needs moved beyond the traditional phases of humanitarian aid
(relief, recovery and rehabilitation) and called for more structural and mid-long term
interventions also in humanitarian settings, particularly in the fields of health, education,
social services, economic measures, skills development. From this point of views, a new
declination of “resilience”, defined as the capacity to strive beyond challenges, and as
bridge between humanitarian and development processes and of development in
humanitarian or emergency contexts, has emerged in policy and practice.
Resilience-building became a new humanitarian, development, peace-building
priority. In areas like the Sahel region in Sub-Saharan Africa, these concepts find clear
representations, where endemic poverty is often linked with or caused by humanitarian
crises, food insecurity and fragility caused by climate change - like in the case of the Lake
Chad Basin - or by conflicts. Intervening with poverty alleviation measures, food aid or
4UNDP Data: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/blog/2014/7/11/how-can-we-
promote-peace-and-development-at-the-same-time.html
5https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/publication/pathways-for-peace-
inclusive-approaches-to-preventing-violent-conflict
6https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty
7https://www.unhcr.org/ph/figures-at-a-glance
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
132
agricultural development from one side, or ensuring key human development services
such as health services, education, skills development, means at the same time reducing
humanitarian needs, planting seeds of development and limiting further causes of
violence or conflict, therefore building peace.
These data clearly show the reason for implementing effective, joint measures to
deliver on the humanitarian-development-peace nexus. The nexus approach aims at
strengthening coherence, coordination and complementarity among the three areas
both in policy and practice, with a view to establishing more joint actions, programming
and actual integration in the field, where the complex realities are still more inter-linked
than at policy-level.
At global level, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the 193
Member States of the United Nations in 2015 at the UN Sustainable Development
Summit, responds to the new challenges of inter-connection and constitutes nowadays
the new global framework for integrated policies for peace, planet, prosperity and
people. The 2030 Agenda sets a vision for our common future and establishes a
measurable set of objectives and targets (17 Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs and
169 related targets) which not only integrate the human, economic, social and
environmental dimensions of development in the new ‘Sustainable Development’
paradigm, but clearly affirms that “there can be no sustainable development without
peace and no peace without sustainable development” 8. From this perspective, we can
arguably define the 2030 Agenda as the most comprehensive policy-framework
integrating the three pillars, set by the United Nations Charter: peace, human rights and
development.
Operationalizing the nexus between humanitarian, development and peace will be
instrumental for achieving these ambitious goals. It constitutes one of the key
challenges for the international system, including in particular the United Nations
Development System, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs), regional
organizations, bilateral and multilateral aid actors and, of course, governments, societies
and their communities. It is not demanded to just one specific authority or agency to
deliver on the nexus, it is rather a system-wide approach in which each actor involved,
from the political to the military, from the development to the humanitarian, from the
social to the economic ones, have the responsibility to fulfill their own ‘piece’ in a more
integrated manner than in the past.
The reformed and reinvigorated UN Development System will play a crucial role to
ensure that the operational activities for development and for humanitarian action give
their essential, collective contribution to peace, in particular through economic
development, poverty eradication and social inclusion. According to the new system,
when the context requires it, the UN Resident Coordination maintains the role of
8Preamble of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1)
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
133
Humanitarian Coordinator, in order to better align processes and activities and
implement the nexus.
According to the latest available data, the United Nations System dedicates 76% of
its total operational country-level expenditure in the so called ‘crisis-affected Countries’.
Figures reported in the latest Report of the Secretary General9 on the activities for
sustainable development show the UN operational and peace related expenditure in
crisis-affected countries, differentiating the mix of different ‘set’ of resources invested,
namely humanitarian, development, peace-keeping and political affairs. Overall, for the
same group of 50 crisis-affected countries, 24% of total resources are development-
related, 27% peace and security-related and 49% devoted to humanitarian activities.
Only by looking at the UN system through this ‘blend’ it is possible, at least
quantitatively, to detect the triple nexus. It has then to be seen, qualitatively, how the
streams communicate and complement each other on the ground. According to those
data, the top eleven Countries per expenditure are, in order: South Sudan, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Yemen, Afghanistan, Central
African Republic, Syria, Iraq. Interestingly, the blend of resources change based on the
Country context.
Looking beyond the UN System, it is worth mentioning that the World Bank Group’s
International Development Association (IDA), the branch of the World Bank in charge of
least developed Countries, has doubled in 2018 its financing for low-income countries
impacted by fragility, conflict and violence, from 7 billion to 14 billion US $, including for
long term investments in sustainable development of those Countries such us in the
sectors of job creation and private sector development in fragile contexts. Furthermore,
the World Bank in partnership with the UN have established the “Humanitarian-
Development-Peace Initiative”10, a new partnership-based instrument which identifies
collective outcomes and deliver comprehensive and integrated responses to Countries
at risk, in protracted crisis or post crisis. This initiative, started in 2017 through the UN-
World Bank Fragility and Conflict Partnership Trust Fund, was operationalized in
Cameroon, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan, complements the structural work of the World
Bank in its “Fragility, Conflict and Violence Group”.
With just a decade until 2030, the challenges to overcome were enormous even
before the Covid-19 and required acceleration, ambition and commitment from all the
actors involved. For this reason, the United Nations declared the next ten years as the
‘Decade of Action’ for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Now, the global efforts will be focused on defeating the coronavirus, mitigating its
92019 Secretary-General's Report on the implementation of the Quadriennal Comprehensive
Policy Review (A/74/73 – E/2019/4)
10https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/the-humanitarian-development-
peace-initiative
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
134
multi-dimensional impact in all contexts and beginning the global recovery according to
the emerging concept of “recover better” which implies, among other elements,
addressing inequalities, building resilience and establishing new and greener human,
economic and social development processes and lifestyles for all, in order to maintain
the pathway towards the Agenda 2030 horizon. The key element to respond effectively
to this unprecedent crisis lies exactly on the challenges of integrated actions and
coordination. The COVID-19 crisis represents, from this perspective, a fundamental
testing point also to implement the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.
This paper will further present the policy evolution of the relation between Peace
and Sustainable Development in the UN context, including through the lenses of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the emerging ‘Sustaining Peace Agenda’,
and show concrete examples of its application in the context of sustainable
development operations and programs, including a focus on the role of the so-called
‘UN Peacebuilding Architecture’, the wider UN Development System and other
international organizations and the relation with the humanitarian action.
2. International Policy Evolution – Three Pillars in One Nexus: From the “Agenda for
Peace” to the 2030 Agenda, the “Sustaining Peace” and the “New Way of
Working”
Since its foundation, the United Nations system and its Member States have been
working to integrate the three mentioned ‘UN Pillars’, facing the challenges posed by
the reality of implementing the high objectives of the UN Charter, from one side, and
the difficult development processes faced by developing Countries, from the others.
When dealing with peace and development, the inevitable truth discovered in practice
by Governments and International actors has been that it is impossible to succeed in
one area without investing in the other area. This fate of inter-dependence was firstly,
clearly and officially stated – interestingly - by the UN Security Council, on the occasion
of a first remarkable Summit on 1 January 1992, where the Council convened for the
first time at head of State and Government level, which, in recognizing the limits of UN
peace-keeping operations, issued a statement, which, among other elements, reported
that:
“The absence of war and military conflicts amongst States does not in itself ensure
international peace and security. The non-military sources of instability in the
economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace and
security. The United Nations membership as a whole, working through the appropriate
bodies, needs to give the highest priority to the solution of these matters.”11
11Security Council Summit Statement Concerning the Council’s Responsibility in the Maintenance of
International Peace and Security, 47 UN SCOR (3046th meeting) UN Doc. S/23500 (1992), UNYB 33
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
135
This statement laid the foundations of a then-groundbreaking report by the then
UN Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali, the so called ‘Agenda for Peace’. The Secretary
General’s Agenda opened the pathway for comprehensive and synergetic peace-
building, peace-keeping and preventive diplomacy actions, which moved beyond the
solely militaristic approach to the maintenance of international peace and security and
called for an integrated approach, which included development in the set of integrated
actions for both post-conflict peace-building and preventive diplomacy.
Since then, the international architecture has developed further, with the
constitution, in 2005, of a new ‘UN Peace-Building Architecture’, established jointly by
the UN General Assembly and the Security Council12, composed by an inter-
governmental body, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) – with the objective, among
others “(b) To promote an integrated, strategic and coherent approach to peacebuilding,
noting that security, development and human rights are closely interlinked and mutually
reinforcing;”-, the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) and an ad-hoc fund, the
Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), aimed at improving a more comprehensive approach to
peace-building strategies, policies and programs and accelerating actions and impact for
peace and development.
The ’Peacebuilding Fund’, represents the financial and operative institution of the
Peacebuilding Architecture. From 2015 to 2018, the Fund has allocated over 368 million
US $ to 47 recipient countries and, according to the data
13, 83% of the Peacebuilding
Fund investments can be directly linked to one or more SDG’s targets (38 % towards
targets under SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions; 11 % towards targets
under SDG 10 on reducing inequalities; 10 % towards targets under SDG 5 on gender
equality; 8% towards targets under SDG 4 on quality education; 5% towards targets
under SDG 8 on decent employment and livelihoods; 11 % towards targets under other
Goals.
More recently, after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the 2015-2016 Review of
the Peacebuilding Architecture culminated with the adoption of two new ‘Twin
Resolutions’ - adopted respectively by the General Assembly and the Security Council14 -,
a new conceptual shift occurred, an emerging approach, particularly promoted by the
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and officially recognized and denominated
‘Sustaining Peace’. The Sustaining Peace Agenda could be seen as a high-level agenda on
the triple nexus, encompassing also the ongoing Secretary-General’s integrated, three-
pillars reform of the United Nations, namely working to improve and move closer the
Peace and Security Pillar, the Development System Pillar and the Operational and
12Resolutions: UNGA A/RES/60/180 and Security Council S/RES/1645 (2005)
13Peacebuilding Fund Investment in the Sustainable Development Goal Report – May 2019 Report
https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.un.org.peacebuilding/files/documents/1907427-e-
pbf-investments-in-sdgs-web.pdf
14Resolution GA/70/262 and Security Council Resolution S/RES/2282 (2016)
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
136
Management Pillar of the United Nations. These ongoing reforms aim not only at making
the UN system more effective and efficient at all levels, but also at the effective
implementation of these ‘inter-connections’.
The ‘Sustaining Peace’ approach, being it both a concept and a living agenda,
encompasses all the necessary political, social, economic, cultural activities to be carried
out to maintain peace and security along all the potential phases of a peace-building
process, from prevention to post-conflict, ensuring coordinated, coherent and
consistent efforts by all international, governmental and non-governmental actors
involved in quest for peace and development.
In 2016, the General Assembly and Security Council ‘Twin’ Resolutions on the
Review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture precisely emphasized:
“the importance of a comprehensive approach to sustaining peace, particularly
through the prevention of conflict and addressing its root causes, strengthening the
rule of law at the international and national levels, and promoting sustained and
sustainable economic growth, poverty eradication, social development, sustainable
development, national reconciliation and unity, including through inclusive dialogue
and mediation, access to justice and transitional justice, accountability, good
governance, democracy, accountable institutions, gender equality and respect for, and
protection of, human rights and fundamental freedoms”15.
The 2030 Agenda offers even a broader platform for integration of peace and
development activities, not only referring to the two processes as interconnected but
directly considering their integrated implementation through at least three specific
components. Firstly, 2030 Agenda has ‘Peace’ as one of its 5 core pillars or ‘dimensions’
16, where this interconnection is restated. Secondly, an ad-hoc Sustainable Development
Goal on peace, justice and strong institutions has been universally agreed: “SDG 16 -
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to
justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels” with
its 10 measurable targets are specifically devoted to those key aspects of governance,
rule of law, justice which directly contribute to peaceful and inclusive institutions and
societies. It is worth referring the SDG 16 targets below:
SDG 16
16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere;
16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of
children;
15Resolution GA/70/262 and Security Council Resolution S/RES/2282 (2016)
16The five dimensions, listed in the Preamble of the Agenda (cfr. A/RES/70/1) are People, Planet,
Prosperity, Peace and Partnership. Under the ‘Peace’ reference, the interconnection between
peace and development is restated.
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
137
16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal
access to justice for all;
16.4 By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the
recovery and return of stolen assets; and combat all forms of organized crime;
16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms;
16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels;
16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at
all levels;
16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the
institutions of global governance;
16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration;
16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in
accordance with national legislation and international agreements;
16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international
cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to
prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime;
16.b Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable
development.
Thirdly, it has been noted that at least 34 targets related to 8 different SDGs 17(the
so called ‘SDG 16+’18), directly contribute to the advancement of peace, justice or
inclusion, leading to a mainstreaming of peace/justice-contributing actions in the 2030
Agenda.
It is possible to state that the 2030 Agenda adheres to the renowned concept of
‘Positive Peace’19, where ‘Peace’ is not intended as the absence of a violent conflict, but
as a more complete concept of social harmony, economic prosperity, good governance,
cultural dialogue, non-discriminatory enjoyment of fundamental freedoms and human
rights by all. From this perspective, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and
its SDGs, including but not just limited to SDG 16, can serve as a real ‘infrastructure’ for
peace, where SDG 16 can be regarded as a ‘Nexus Enabler’, the backbone for
strengthening resilient public services for peace and development.
From this perspective, the 2030 Agenda arguably represents the best mix of
measures to prevent violence and conflict by tackling their root causes, including food
security, lack of access to basic needs, rights and services such as health or education
17Targets included in SDG 1 on Poverty, SDG 4 on Education, SDG 5 on Gender Empowerment, SDG
8 on Decent Work, SDG 10 on Inequalities, SDG 11 on Sustainable cities, SDG 16 on Peace, Justice
and Strong institutions, SDG 17 on Partnerships)
18https://www.sdg16.plus/roadmap
19Inspired by philosophers, including St. Augustine and Immanuel Kant, it has developed as a
sociological concept by Johan Galtung and then elaborated by several authors and organizations,
including for the elaboration of the ‘Global Peace Index’
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
138
injustice, social exclusion, limitation or violation of human rights, inequalities,
corruption. From this perspective, it could be then seen as an effective preventive
agenda: the more a society is equal, just, inclusive, the more it is rooted in peace and
prosperity. At the same time, the more fragile the social texture is in a given community
or countries, the higher is the risk of violence and conflict. Inclusive sustainable
development, where no one is left behind, represents the best defense against the risks
of violent conflict.
Such approach built on previous global frameworks such as the outcomes of the
“World Humanitarian Summit” (Istanbul, 2016), which also adopted the so called “Grand
Bargain”, a multi-stakeholders agreement between 61 signatories (24 Governments, 11
UN Agencies, 5 inter-governmental organizations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent
Movement and 21 major non-governmental organizations), which represent about the
73% of all humanitarian contributions globally. Signatories agreed to improve
effectiveness and efficiency of the humanitarian action, working across nine
“workstreams”: greater transparency; more support and funding tools to local and
national responders; increase the use and coordination of cash/based programming;
reduce duplications and management costs; improve joint and impartial needs
assessment; increase multi-stakeholders participation in decision-making; increase
humanitarian multi-year planning and funding and quality funding; harmonize and
simplify reporting and, as a mainstreamed thematic, enhance engagement between
humanitarian and development actors.
As part of the new UN Development System Reform, in 2018 a Joint Steering
Committee on Humanitarian and Development Collaboration was constituted, chaired
by the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and composed by all the UN
entities, agencies, funds and programs operating in fragility contexts, aimed at
sustaining the nexus and the UN Country Teams in charge of its implementation at
Country-level. These operations include more coordination in planning, including joint-
analysis and planning, enhanced cooperation, complementarity and coherence,
respecting needs-based assessment and contextualized, tailored approaches.
The UN Agencies, Fund and Programs, are at the frontlines of the nexus
implementation, especially those working within both humanitarian and development
mandates or with the aim of bridging humanitarian and development priorities, such us
the World Food Program, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNDP, UN Women, in partnership
with key UN Departments like the UN Department for Political and Peace-Building
Affairs and the UN Department for Peace-Keeping Operations and their respective
Countries’ and Fields’ missions.
Implementing the humanitarian-peace-development nexus in Country-contexts
requires, however, greater efforts of coordination among the relevant actors. From the
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
139
operational side, a ‘New Way of Working (NWow)’20 has emerged within the United
Nations System as a set of operational principles which “calls on humanitarian and
development actors to work collaboratively together, based on their comparative
advantages, towards ‘collective outcomes’ that reduce need, risk and vulnerability over
multiple years” for which implementation and further elaboration a Joint Steering
Committee to advance humanitarian and development cooperation has been
established.
The way ahead towards the implementation of the peace-development nexus, and
the triple nexus, will require:
1) Structural efforts towards a global and inter-sectoral policy-coherence;
2) Strategic, financial and operational coordination among actors, both multilateral
and bilateral, governmental and non-governmental, starting from the
cooperation between military, political and development entities on the ground;
3) Commitment from national and local governments to own the Sustaining Peace
Agenda at Country-level.
3. A Focus on Italy: Advocate, Donor and Convener for Peace and Sustainable
Development for All
In this context, Italy is engaged to advance the humanitarian-peace-development nexus
and the triple nexus, both in its bilateral action and as an actor and contributor to the
wider multilateral system. As recently acknowledged by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Peer Review of the Italian Development
Cooperation (2019), “Italy has a long tradition of engaging in fragile and crisis countries,
and all of Italy’s priority countries and countries of operation are among the top 40
fragile countries and territories in the OECD fragility framework. A strong field presence,
including by its own non-government organizations (NGOs) in fragile and conflict-
affected states, helps Italy contextualize and adapt its co-operation“.21
The Italian action on the nexus finds its area of engagement in the Mediterranean
Region and in the most fragile areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, such as the Horn of Africa
and the Sahel. In these areas, Italy works on multi-dimensional approaches to conflict
and violence prevention, including working on long-term development needs in
protracted humanitarian crisis -settings such as refugees and displaced camps, rural
areas, working on basic services from health to education to developing entrepreneurial
skills or working on capacity-building in the sector of cultural heritage and agriculture.
20https://www.un.org/jsc/content/new-way-working
21OECD DAC Peer Review of the Italian Development Cooperation, 2019: https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/sites/b1874a7a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/b1874a7a-en&mimeType
=text/html&_csp_=d142970d2ab4e64232e4558df07d8090&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
140
Just to mention a few concrete examples, between 2017-2019, Italy has been
contributing to targeted initiatives in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia,
Palestine, Ethiopia and Sudan to work in the areas of resilience of communities and
institutions, access to services and opportunities for displaced and refugees, quality
education in conflict-affected areas, institutional capacity-development, poverty
alleviation, local agro-business development, promoting women and youth agency and
inclusion at all levels in line with the Women, Peace and Security Agenda and the Youth,
Peace and Security Agenda22. All of these initiatives directly related to a successful
implementation of the peace-development nexus and working for sustainable
development in fragile settings.
Italy further supports multilateral efforts to implement the peace-development
nexus in post-conflict and conflict affected areas by contributing, among others, to the
‘Funding Facility for Immediate Stabilization in Iraq’23, the ‘Law and Order Trust Fund’ for
Afghanistan24, the World Bank’s ‘Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund’25, the
Stabilization Facility for Libya26, the ‘Joint Peace Fund’ for Myanmar27, the EU Trust Fund
for Peace Colombia28.
Italy is also one of the major contributors to the UN Development Program (UNDP),
focusing especially on tackling root cause of migration and building resilience to prevent
and mitigate the impact of crisis and conflicts by helping to stabilize societies, support or
rebuild institutions in some of the most challenging development contexts in the world.
According to UNDP data29, the top recipients of Italian funding through UNDP are indeed
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Sudan. The programs
focus, for example, to support Lebanese and Syrians towards improved livelihoods,
social services, primary health care, training for agriculture and agrifood cooperatives;
repairing 11 hospitals, providing medicines and supplies, and rehabilitating 16 schools
and municipal services in Libya.
Italy, therefore, supports the implementation of the nexus, starting from
22UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 (2000), 2250 (2015), 2282 (2016), 2419 (2018)
23Main objectives: Rebuilding schools and hospitals; Rehabilitating water systems and electricity
networks; Providing short-term employment through public works schemes; and rehabilitating
houses damaged by ISIL. Managed by UNDP.
24https://open.undp.org/projects/00089137
25http://www.artf.af/
26https://www.ly.undp.org/content/libya/en/home/projects/Stabilization-Facility-for-Libya.html
27Strengthening conflict management mechanisms created by ceasefire agreements (outcome 1);
supporting formal and informal negotiations and dialogues (outcome 2); and promoting
inclusivity through broad participation in the peace process (outcome 3). Managed by UNOPS.
28https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/eu-trust-fund-colombia_en
29https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/PG_Brochures/UNDP_PG_Italy_Br
ochure.pdf
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
141
intervening in the so called ‘protracted crises’, such as in the context of the more than
10-years long Syrian conflict, where increasingly more resilience-building actions are
needed in addition to the typical relief measures to sustain civilian affected, or in the
contexts of long-standing refugee camps and other displaced settings. These measures
and interventions are regarded as key actions, to provide, protect and sustain the most
vulnerable and affected people, from one side, and, from the others, also to support
hosting communities, which, as argued, are themselves often fragile and developing
Countries (such as Jordan, Lebanon, Uganda, three of the highest host Countries of
refugees per capita in the world) facing several level of challenges in their development
process, including in the context of integration and services providing.
Additionally, Italy has also been among the main supporters of the UN
Peacebuilding Fund and it is currently among the top 20 donors at global level. Italy has
also earmarked financing specifically to initiatives for women and young people’s
empowerment, which are considered key agents and actors in development and peace-
building, and on which role of peace-builders, mediators and protagonists of
development processes in the local, national and international contexts, Italy is
consistently investing and advocating for, in line with the Women, Peace and Security
and the Youth, Peace and Security Agendas, introduced with UN Security Council
Resolution 1325 and 2250, which encompass a “triple nexus approach” along
humanitarian, development and peace dynamics.
As a proactive multilateral actor in the policy-making fora, Italy has been among the
major supporters of SDG16+ targets in the Agenda 2030. This was also linked to the
traditional importance attached to the promotion of rule of law and human rights, also
as development enablers.
As a further demonstration of this commitment, Italy was chosen by the United
Nations to host the first global, preparatory, thematic review of SDG 16, in the context
of the monitoring process of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda culminating in the
annual UN High Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development (HLPF). The meeting ,
co-organized with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(UNDESA) and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), hosted in Rome
in May2019 at the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and
denominated “Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies: SDG 16 implementation and the
path towards leaving no one behind”, brought together over 300 participants from
national governments, United Nations entities, international organizations, the private
sector, local governments, academia and civil society, including several youth
participants. It served as a global, multi-stakeholder platform to discuss and explore the
state of SDG 16 implementation, which took stock and analyzed the challenges and
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
142
opportunities and the status of implementation of SDG 16 and SDG 1630, directly
reporting to the HLPF. In order to promote the meaningful engagement of young people
in policy and decision-making spaces, a key role in the Conference was reserved to 16
young leaders involved in local actions in developing countries for the achievement of
the SDG16+ and other civil society delegates championing SDG 16+ at local level, whose
positions were fully integrated in the outcomes of the Conference as well as into the
‘Rome Civil Society SDG16+ Declaration’31 and in the entirely youth-led ‘Rome Youth
Call-to-Action on SDG 16’32.
Italy, which is also one of the members of the OECD’s “International Network on
Conflict and Fragility (INCAF)”, is currently developing its “Strategic Guidelines on the
humanitarian-development-peace nexus” in line with the OECD Development Assistance
Committee’s Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, with
the purposes of:
- alleviating the immediate humanitarian needs while reducing long-term
vulnerabilities;
- strengthening programmatic synergy between humanitarian and development
programs, including the ‘peacebuilding’ dimension;
- working on comparative advantages of its programs and coordinating with the
wider international and local systems.
Italy has set among its development cooperation priorities to continue to be an
engaged actor, convener and committed implementer of the humanitarian-peace-
development nexus, as a fundamental directive towards the achievement of the
Sustainable Development Goals and the aspiration of more prosperous, peaceful and
inclusive world.
4. Conclusions
The faith of inter-dependence between peace and sustainable development processes is
inevitable. The emerging approaches of ‘Sustaining Peace’, the ‘Humanitarian -
Development- Peace Nexus’ or ‘Triple Nexus’ and the new ad-hoc approaches on
working in fragility and protracted crisis being implemented by multilateral and bilateral
actors can have major positive implications for new, ambitious, long-term joint
outcomes. Working on ‘one dice’, to solve this Rubik’s cube is the only way to find
sustainable, long term, successful solutions for achieving Peace and Sustainable
Development for all.
30SDG 16 Conference - Outcomes and key recommendations: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org
/content/documents/23814SDG_16_MAIN_SUMMARY_SDG_Conference_Rome_May2019.pdf
31https://tapnetwork2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rome-Civil-Society-Declaration-on-
SDG16-FINAL.pdf
32https://www.youth4peace.info/node/343
Journal of International Cooperation and Development
www.richtmann.org/journal
Vol 3, No 1, May 2020
143
References
Institute of Economics and Peace - Global Peace Index 2020: Measuring Peace in a Complex
World. http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2020/06/GPI_2020_web.pdf
OECD – DAC Reccomendations on the Humanitarian, Peace, Development Nexus.
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/643/643.en.pdf
OXFAM – The Humanitarian, Development, Peace Nexus. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int
/files/resources/dp-humanitarian-development-peace-nexus-260619-en_0.pdf
OIM – Operationalizing the Humanitarian – Development – Peace Nexus: Lessons from Colombia,
Mali, Nigeria, Somalia and Turkey. https://publications.iom.int/books/operationalizing-
humanitarian-development-peace-nexus-lessons-colombia-mali-nigeria-somalia
OCHA – New way of Working. https://www.agendaforhumanity.org/sites/default/files
/20170228%20NWoW%2013%20high%20res.pdf
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) – Grand Bargain annual independent report 2020
https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/2020-06/Grand%20Bargain%20Annual
%20Independent%20Report%202020_0.pdf
UN-World Bank - Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28337
Security Council mandated Progress Study on Youth, Peace and Security.
https://www.youth4peace.info/ProgressStudy
Report of the Rome SDG 16 Conference (2019) – Outcome: Key messages and Recommendations.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23814SDG_16_MAIN_SUMMA
RY_SDG_Conference_Rome_May2019.pdf
International Peace Institute- Sustaining Peace: What does it mean in Practice?
https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1704_Sustaining-Peace-final.pdf
Pathfinders – The Roadmap for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies: A call to action to change
our world. https://530cfd94-d934-468b-a1c7-c67a84734064.filesusr.com/ugd/6c192f
_0349710665254122b0a00066c31fa8d2.pdf
UNICEF - Navigating the humanitarian-development nexus in forced displacement contexts.
https://www.unicef.org/esa/media/4866/file
UN Evaluation Group – Humanitarian-Development Nexus: what do evaluations have to say?
http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/2120
Steven, Locke, Ruttinger – Beyond 16: The SDGs and the opportunity to build a more peaceful
world. https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/6c192f_708dc5b85c4c4d2b9d1bceb791b72125.pdf
