Challenges and support needed in operationalizing the HDP Nexus approach

While in some countries an understanding of HDPN approach already exists (i.e. Somalia, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Venezuela), in majority of contexts there is a need for guidance on how to implement it in practice, especially in the field. In other contexts, there is a need for clear definition of Nexus approach for humanitarian actors. The key challenge related to understanding the HDPN approach is the unclear vision of how the humanitarian actors can link with development and peace actors and activities without stepping out of the humanitarian mandate. A significant challenge is the lack of a national strategy and a common understanding of what HDPN is.

In conflict settings, particularly where there is a need to establish formal peace processes ("big 'P'"), it can be challenging to clearly define and implement peace and development activities. As a result, the potential to apply the Nexus approach may be limited, which can hinder the integration of the Nexus approach.

Thus, to overcome these challenges the possible solutions could be:

• Development of clear guidance for humanitarian actors on advancing the HDPN approach would allow to have a common vision on the HDPN and how to approach it operationally. Clarifying what is the fine line between development actions and humanitarian assistance and what is to be done to achieve the triple nexus.

• Organizing workshops, joint meetings with HDPN stakeholders, and capacity building events for partners, including those on HDPN programming and coordination. More tools on how to implement the HDPN approach can be useful. Meetings organized by gFSC team to showcase good practical examples of HDPN programming in the FSC would be helpful.

• Promoting sharing needs assessments, success stories, lessons learned. Regular dissemination of information related to HDPN among partners, OCHA, government and donors.

• Adopting national strategy at the RC/HC level in jointly with development, humanitarian and peace actors

Even if the humanitarian community recognizes the concept of HDPN both in theory and practical terms, the key setback is getting all of the key partners around the table. The lack of formal joint coordination mechanism bringing all the HNDP actors (humanitarian and development actors, including the government) persists in majority of contexts. 

For effective functionality these mechanisms should be strengthened at both national and regional levels. The coordinators stated that either there are separate coordination platforms and a need for synchronization is required, or lack of understanding if there are coordination platforms for development and peace actors. 

The lack of understanding of HDPN concept and how humanitarians can coordinate with development and peace actors is also an impediment for effective HDP coordination. 

In some contexts, the process of building the HDP coordination mechanism is already in progress led by the RC/HC Office in conjunction with the government. For the operations which are at the beginning of establishing the HDPN coordination, support in forms of sharing experience of more advanced contexts and good practices would be helpful. 

The support suggested by the coordinators with regards to HDP coordination mechanisms are:

• Strengthening these mechanisms at both national and regional levels

• Mapping of active HDP actors and activities is considered to be the starting point for building the HDP coordination mechanisms.

• Clear governmental policies on HDPN are available.

• The solutions should be also undertaken at the intersectoral level. Strengthen capacities/workshops with OCHA team, ICCG, partners to provide key inputs in operationalization of HDPN approach. Also try to engage with UNDP at HCT level, as in many contexts they implement various projects with the government. All sectors need to be involved in the coordination with the leadership of the HC. By ensuring a strong coordination we would be able to avoid the situation where many actors operate in silos. 

• gFSC can also play a role by sharing examples on how this coordination can be enhanced, providing strategic and practical guidance on how to integrate HDPN in ongoing interventions, particularly on coordination arrangements.

Even though the overall drivers of food insecurity in the countries of operation are well understood, especially in contexts with established IPC and Cadre Harmonisé analysis, the need for in-depth assessment with regards to the specificities of each location (at the more granular level) persists. Coordinators also highlight the need for stronger coordination on assessment and analysis. 

Once the understanding of HDPN concept is clear, joint needs analysis exercise can be conducted, which would also feed advocacy efforts for government and donors. 

In some operations, there are separate context, risk and need analyses. Peace pillar is also a dimension not understood yet and there is a need for more qualitative and quantitative research to inform the measurement of peace and social cohesion indicators (Venezuela, Niger).

Support required in joint analysis:

• Tools to conduct analysis.

• Capacity building of actors on conducting the analysis

• Joint analysis of food security outcomes is required in terms of acute and chronic food insecurity.

For joint planning, minimum requirements are reliable needs assessment, multiannual programing and funding. Joint planning would allow to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure consistency in assistance between humanitarian response and more sustainable solutions. 

One of the possible pathways by the HDP community to apply the people-centered principle is the graduation approach, through which the joint planning envisages referrals, and institutions working throughout the process. For example, in Ukraine, some vulnerable households have perfectly utilized the grants and need additional funds to excel or scale up, which the emergency actors find difficult to fund, but development or recovery actors could. By referring such needs to recovery and development actors, the identification and training process can be shortened, and employment can be created. Joint planning and implementation are needed for the transition of humanitarian caseloads to development actors.

To initiate joint planning, support and guidance are needed on how funding can be mobilized to support HDPN interventions. Also, more tools on how to lead joint planning are required, as among cluster current and potential partners there are those with different interests, mandates. 

Among key challenges in joint planning are the different timeframes on which humanitarian and development interventions take place, and different priorities across various stakeholders in the sector. 

Joint planning, workplan harmonization and implementation also require significant capacity building. 

Joint programmes are considered often like those which should include government, UNDP and other development actors in the process as part of good practice in HDPN coordination and successful projects.

In some countries, the HDPN involves larger stakeholders than the FSC and the dynamics are out of control the FSC. 

Effective monitoring framework of HDP programmes should include common indicators to track the impact of HDPN interventions. 

The mapping of HDPN actors is an important activity as it facilitates the advancing of the other components of the HDPN approach, including MEAL. 

Even in countries where the HDP mapping has been initiated (including those five as part of the GNAFC initiative), nonetheless MEAL is needed to document the concrete outcomes of the joint approach.

To ensure effective HDP coordination, there is a need of stronger coordination on data sharing.

The responses from coordinators witnessed that almost all the cluster partners agree with the necessity to move forward the HDP Nexis approach. However, one of the issue to operationalize it is lack of financial support to joint initiatives. For successful joint advocacy efforts, we should ensure that there are joint statements on needs, based on joint needs analyses. 

Coordinators also highlighted the crucial role of governments in joint advocacy and financing, if the governments opens-up to going beyond humanitarian. There are already multiple development programmes on ground, the issue is we are not aware, and the HDP mapping could reduce this gap.

In many contexts financing is an issue as the three dimensions of HDP are being perceived separately by donors too. In some countries, even if the joint advocacy exercises took place, ensuring funding could be a significant challenge. 

Therefore, there is a need for a common vision for the entire HDP community, including implementing organization, donors, government and civil societies, and encouraging complementarity in interventions for maximum impact. Currently this part requires more capacity building efforts, including raising donors’ awareness on the necessity to fund joint projects.

In light of the recent boundary setting initiative initiated by OCHA, as there is a move towards tighter prioritization of humanitarian funding, joint advocacy for HDP interventions becomes even more crucial.