Paper details
| Paper authors | Leila Oliveira and Kamau Wanjohi |
| In panel on | Beyond Integration: Revisiting the Triple Humanitarian–Development–Peace (HDP) Nexus in Practice |
| Paper presenter(s) will be presenting |
|
Abstract
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification's new Protocols for Classification of Protracted Food and Nutrition Crises offer a concrete methodological response to the persistent challenges of implementing the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) nexus in practice. While nexus approaches have proliferated conceptually, operational translation remains fragmented—particularly in protracted crises where 20% or more of populations experience acute food insecurity for five consecutive years.
The IPC protocols directly address three critical nexus implementation gaps. First, they resolve temporal disconnects by establishing 2-4 year analytical cycles that bridge humanitarian planning horizons with development timeframes. Second, they overcome sectoral silos through mandatory multi-stakeholder analysis teams combining humanitarian assessors with development planners and peace actors. Third, they transform abstract "nexus thinking" into actionable frameworks by systematically linking causal analysis to intervention design across all three nexus pillars.
Field application reveals how these protocols navigate the political economy of nexus implementation. The historical trend analysis identifies persistent prevalence levels that justify multi-year funding commitments—critical as humanitarian financing shrinks while needs expand. The underlying causes analysis, using problem tree methodology, systematically traces how institutional failures, policy gaps, and structural vulnerabilities perpetuate crisis conditions, though the protocols maintain technical rather than explicitly political framing. The critical pathways framework translates causal analysis into strategic interventions, requiring analysts and decision-makers to jointly identify where humanitarian relief, development programming, and peace initiatives can be mutually reinforcing rather than operating in isolation.
The protocols' requirement for consensus-based analysis among diverse stakeholders surfaces the power dynamics shaping nexus operationalization. Government ministries, UN agencies, NGOs, and local actors must negotiate competing interpretations of "protracted crisis" and agree on intervention priorities. This process exposes how nexus implementation is fundamentally about redistributing decision-making authority—not merely coordinating pre-existing programs.
Early implementation in eleven countries demonstrates both potential and limitations. The protocols enable context-specific nexus approaches rather than blueprint solutions, yet require significant time investment and technical capacity. They provide common analytical frameworks across sectors while revealing institutional resistance to integrated planning. Most critically, they shift focus from abstract integration to concrete questions: integration for what purpose, controlled by whom, and with what consequences for affected populations?
This presentation examines how the IPC protocols illuminate the politics of nexus operationalization, offering lessons for practitioners navigating shrinking humanitarian space while pursuing transformative approaches to protracted crises.
