Humanitarian mastermind Hugo Slim talks about the not-so-new nexus theory and the reasons why the ICRC doesn't really need it. Do we need a new way of thinking in humanitarian policy and a triple nexus to make the world a better place? No. I believe the nexus theory is mainly a way for the United Nations to organise all its different vertical institutions. The ICRC does not really need it because we have always worked across a very wide range of people's needs and over the short and long term. The theory is simple. Humanitarian action causes development, development causes peace.

So the distinction between humanitarian action and development should be upheld? Yes. One is about helping a person in need. The other is about transforming human society. Also in terms of funding? Not necessarily, because things like power stations, hospitals and water treatment centres – which are bureaucratically seen as "development" – are vital to people's humanitarian survival. We see a trend towards the merging of all sorts of global policies. On the one hand, that's good because many problems on the ground are indivisible from one another. Poverty is created by climate change, by violence, by bad economic policies or unfair trade practices. On the other hand, in countries with protracted conflict, where infrastructure has been badly damaged, we need the funding of development actors. A nexus debate could bring in new donors.

But you remain sceptical about the third element of the nexus , about peace. I don't have scepticism, we work across the peace nexus very often. We have two Latin mottos at the ICRC: inter arma caritas, in the midst of arms love, and per humanitatem ad pacem – through humanity towards peace. We buried that one over the last two decades, but there is a truth in it. We don't do peacemaking, but we recognise that some of the things we do can make peace easier. Our protection dialogues with all parties – agreeing on aid convoys or dead body and prisoner exchanges – involve enemies dealing with one another and respecting their humanity. That creates a bit of trust. Why was the second Latin motto buried then? Perhaps people were rightly worried about being associated with very politicised peace makers. Back in the nineties there was a wave of enthusiasm for a certain kind of liberal peace. The UN had an "agenda for peace" and everything was joined together for "coherence". It wasn't called a nexus then but it was a clear political project that was rather Western.

So do we need a nexus debate at all? I think we have to have it – it's a good Latin word about the point at which things connect. We should use it. There is a humanitarian-development nexus, a humanitarian-peace nexus, a climate-conflict nexus, a climate-humanitarian nexus, and a sort of gender-everything nexus. Maybe we are going to have a double helix approach next [laughs]. Unfortunately, scientists haven't taken a good picture of the triple nexus yet, but we do have good photos of the double helix. What would a photo of the nexus look like? Like our work in Somalia or in the Middle East. Like humanitarian projects which are taking a one-week horizon and a three to five-year horizon. We are trying to get emergency water tanks working for people who have just been displaced or had their homes bombed out, so they can get safe water. At the same time, we are trying to maintain big plants, pipelines and power stations so they don't collapse. That requires a three to five-year view of staffing and strategy. But I don't want to talk about it as humanitarian development because development is not our word. I want to talk about good humanitarian work that is a combination of short and long-term engagement because people have short and medium-term needs.

Aware that many in our community lacked clarity and understanding on the conceptual discussions behind the triple nexus and the implications at practical level, the annual conference and the webinar series provided opportunities for further discussions with actors from across the nexus.

Although the new way of working/nexus process is still very UN centric it cuts across much of our work: forced displacement, financing, coordination, humanitarian principles, and civil society space.

The relevance of this for bridging the humanitarian–development nexus and delivering a New Way of Working towards collective outcomes is clear – the starting point of joined-up action has to be joined-up data.

On the double vs triple nexus , Mr. Coninx noted that, in articulating the nexus, various agencies and entities include peace, while the Secretary-General seeks to empower RC/HCs to support peacebuilding. At the same time, some saw the triple nexus as putting core humanitarian principles and humanitarian space at risk. The HDN TT proposal focuses on the double (humanitarian-development) nexus, and getting this right first. The relevance of this for bridging the humanitarian–development nexus and delivering a New Way of Working towards collective outcomes is clear – the starting point of joined-up action has to be joined-up data.

Protracted crises, the humanitarian-development nexus, and the localization agenda are all reshaping the scope and boundaries of humanitarianism.

In discussing the Triple Nexus and engagement on peace, Working Group members agreed the primary focus on the double nexus, and that this should include achieving better humanitarian outcomes through better preparedness and risk management in development phases.