The HDP Nexus at the Onset of Crisis: Can Local Actors Lead the Way?
This is a chapter in a forthcoming e-book, entitled 'The Triple Humanitarian, Development and Peace Nexus: In Context and Everyday Perspective', edited by Marina Ferrero Baselga and Rodrigo Mena. Chapters are currently being serialised on Global Policy.
This chapter examines the conceptual and operational challenges and limitations of the nexus in the initial hours of emergency responses in armed conflicts, and how localisation can offer a potential solution despite bringing its own set of challenges and limitations.
Operationalizing the Nexus in the Early Stages of a Crisis
The humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus proposes a concurrent application of the three elements of the nexus, moving beyond linear models towards a contiguum logic (Rey, Abellan & Gomez, 2022). This implies that once a humanitarian intervention is initiated, other components should be launched simultaneously to enhance their synergistic effects. Logically, this suggests that as soon as an emergency response begins, the nexus should also be activated at the earliest possible stage.
Early Activation of the Nexus: Promise and Potential
The initial phase of crisis intervention is crucial for preserving lives and alleviating suffering, yet it also presents challenges, such as disorganization on the ground and pressing demands for coordination among various stakeholders. Rapid assessments are central during this stage, as they gather baseline information and involve consultation with local communities to identify needs and vulnerabilities. Past experiences illustrate how timely and effective coordination can substantially influence the overall impact of humanitarian efforts in conflict settings (Paffenholz, 2009). By integrating these actions through the nexus, emergency relief initiatives not only address immediate necessities but also lay the groundwork for sustainable recovery strategies that remain attentive to conflict dynamics and development goals.
Recent case studies show how various contexts endeavor to balance immediate humanitarian interventions with longer-term development and peacebuilding within the nexus framework. In Chad, a European Commission review of the nexus pilot project observed that, although joint planning mechanisms were established, the absence of a formally approved nexus action plan impeded these mechanisms’ effective implementation, thereby casting doubt on their utility in the immediate post-emergency period. The EU’s approach to the nexus focused on coordinating humanitarian and development funding, but peacebuilding efforts were largely missing during rapid response operations. Moreover, the lack of adaptable financial instruments and persistent siloed funding structures limited cross-sectoral efforts in the early stages of crisis response.
In Iraq, one initiative attempted to integrate humanitarian cash assistance with longer-term social protection programs from the outset of an emergency. The project faced barriers in transitioning from short-term cash relief to institutionalized social protection, primarily due to bureaucratic procedures and inconsistent coordination with national authorities. While the program demonstrated promise for early nexus integration, insufficient funding and delays in conflict-sensitive development work ultimately undermined its impact (European Comission Nexus study, 2022, p63).
On the other hand, Uganda provides a comparatively advanced example of HDP nexus implementation, particularly in districts hosting refugee populations. Its Settlement Transformative Agenda aligned with nexus ideals, facilitating an early convergence of humanitarian assistance and development planning. During sudden-onset emergencies, immediate interventions continued to depend heavily on humanitarian agencies, with development measures coming into play only once a basic level of stability was reached. Key challenges included lags in securing development funds and underdeveloped peacebuilding activities in the initial phase of a crisis.
From Theory to Practice: Challenges in Rapid-Onset Contexts
The operationalization of the nexus during the earliest stages of a crisis remains a largely unexplored area, revealing a significant gap between theoretical frameworks and field realities. Although the nexus model emphasizes coherence across humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding activities, its immediate applicability in rapid-onset emergencies is limited by operational, structural, and ethical tensions. Most scholarly discussions center on the nexus in protracted crises, whereas scant attention has been given to how it functions under the urgent, high-stakes conditions of an emerging conflict. One of the main points of friction lies in the discrepancy between the rapid action required by humanitarian imperatives, particularly the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and the more methodical, coordination-intensive nature of nexus-based interventions. Humanitarian actors need to respond quickly, while development and peace initiatives often require working with government authorities. This can slow down the response and affect the neutrality and independence of humanitarian work by bringing political interests into areas intended for impartial aid (Brown, Mena, & Brown, 2024). Additionally, entrenched bureaucratic and financial divisions reinforce a sequential rather than concurrent approach, rendering integrated measures within the critical first hours exceedingly difficult.
Existing research indicates that joint assessments and planning tools are insufficiently developed for situations that demand immediate action, reducing their efficacy precisely when quick, decisive intervention is needed. The dominant emphasis on long-term resilience overlooks the fact that, in the first hours of a crisis, agencies must prioritize speed and security over comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategies. This raises a pivotal question: can the HDP nexus be enacted in the first hours without undermining the central tenets of humanitarian response? Addressing this issue calls for a move away from purely conceptual debates toward practical, evidence-based operational frameworks designed explicitly for rapid-response contexts.
Are local actors the answer?
A fundamental component of this integrated response is the principle of “localization”, which seeks to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of interventions by adapting responses to the specific needs and capabilities of affected/local communities. Within the nexus framework, localization becomes an essential mechanism for bridging immediate humanitarian response with long-term recovery and peacebuilding efforts, reinforcing the notion that sustainable impact is best achieved when local actors are at the forefront of aid and governance structures.
The Limits of Localization in the Nexus
The integration of localization within the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) nexus faces several theoretical challenges and limitations. One of the central debates concerns the definition of "local" actors and the extent to which they should be involved in shaping interventions. While localization aims to empower local organizations, it often operates within a system where international actors retain control over funding and decision-making, thereby reproducing existing power asymmetries rather than dismantling them (Barakat and Milton, 2020). The divergences between the humanitarian principles and practices and peace and development practices, creates tensions when implementing localization strategies within an integrated nexus framework, as local actors may struggle to align their approaches across these domains.
The principle of localization assumes that local actors inherently possess the capacity to lead interventions. However, structural barriers, including limited access to flexible funding, restrictive donor policies, and the risk-transfer burden placed on local organizations, often hinder their ability to operate independently. Donors and international agencies frequently demand adherence to rigid compliance and reporting structures, which can sideline local initiatives that do not fit pre-established bureaucratic requirements. Several scholars have addressed this (see Barakat & Milton, 2020; Khoury & Scott, 2024). There is a risk of instrumentalizing localization to serve external agendas. Some critics suggest that localization is promoted not as a means of genuine empowerment but as a cost-saving mechanism that shifts operational risks to local actors while maintaining the dominance of international agencies. This creates a paradox where localization is encouraged rhetorically but constrained in practice. Localization can be perceived as a mere shift of operational risks to local actors while maintaining donor control over decision-making and funding.
The challenges of localization within the nexus, therefore, go beyond technical coordination issues; they are deeply embedded in the politics of aid, power hierarchies, and the contested nature of the "local". Overcoming these challenges requires a more nuanced understanding of localization that moves beyond mere inclusion towards meaningful power redistribution.
Localization in Practice Across Contexts
In South Sudan, the nexus has been incorporated into the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) and the 2023 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), attempting to align emergency relief with long-term development objectives. However, implementation remains largely top-down, with significant power imbalances between international actors and local NGOs. The South Sudan Reconciliation, Stabilization, and Resilience Trust Fund (RSRTF) has sought to integrate reconciliation, stabilization, and resilience pillars, but these efforts are constrained by the government’s weak capacity and donor hesitancy to directly engage with state structures. Similarly, in Somalia, localization has been integral to peacebuilding and humanitarian efforts, yet challenges remain in balancing local ownership with donor priorities. Many local organizations find themselves in a subordinate position, acting primarily as implementing partners for international agencies rather than as leaders in the response. Different reports and academic literature find that security concerns have also led to increased risk transfer, where local actors bear the brunt of operational dangers while international organizations remain in safer locations.
Uganda -as mentioned before- presents a contrasting example, where localization has been embedded into national frameworks for refugee response. The government’s Settlement Transformative Agenda has allowed for early integration of humanitarian and development efforts, facilitating long-term stability for displaced populations. However, immediate emergency responses still rely heavily on international actors, and peacebuilding remains an underdeveloped component within the first phase of crises as highlighted by a GIZ report on the nexus in the context of peace operations in sub-saharan Africa. In Syria, the humanitarian response offers a different perspective, revealing the contradictions of localization in a highly politicized conflict environment. While Syrian civil society organizations have become the backbone of aid delivery in opposition-controlled areas, they remain structurally dependent on international donors. Research indicates that while international funding has increased local implementation capacity, it has not translated into local leadership or decision-making power, reinforcing a model where local actors are subcontractors rather than equal partners.
These cases demonstrate that while localization within the HDP nexus can enhance effectiveness and sustainability, its implementation is often hindered by systemic barriers. Structural inequalities in funding allocation, risk management, and strategic decision-making continue to limit the transformative potential of localization. Addressing these issues requires a shift from rhetorical commitments to practical mechanisms that genuinely empower local actors within the HDP framework.
Conclusion
While the nexus framework aims to integrate humanitarian relief, development and peacebuilding, its application in rapid-onset crises is hindered by structural, financial, and operational barriers. A significant gap in the literature exists regarding the implementation of the HDP nexus within the first hours of an emergency, as most scholarly discussions focus on protracted crises rather than immediate crisis response. The challenges of localization further complicate the process, as local actors are often constrained by power imbalances, funding limitations, and risk-transfer dynamics. Case studies from Chad, Iraq, Uganda, South Sudan, and Syria illustrate both the potential and limitations of implementing nexus-driven approaches in emergency contexts, particularly in transitioning from immediate humanitarian relief to long-term development. The review underscores that despite theoretical advancements, the nexus remains difficult to apply in the first hours of an emergency without compromising humanitarian principles or delaying interventions. While localization is often presented as a solution, literature reflects that it does not fully overcome these challenges due to persistent power asymmetries and the continued dependence on international actors.
These reflections are inevitably shaped by the positionality of the researcher, a white European male humanitarian scholar with experience working on issues related to aid in the Global South. The author’s academic training and professional engagement in the humanitarian sector inform a critical understanding of the tensions between theory and practice. Grounded in a constructivist epistemology and viewed through a postcolonial lens, this perspective enables a reflective engagement with the literature, particularly on localization and power dynamics. At the same time, it introduces limitations, as the interpretation of findings is influenced by both the author’s distance from field-level implementation and his embeddedness within broader Northern institutional frameworks.
Future research should focus on developing practical models that reconcile rapid humanitarian action with the longer-term objectives of development and peacebuilding while ensuring meaningful localization. Addressing these operational and epistemological gaps is essential for making the nexus more actionable in high-intensity emergency settings.
Aleix S. Porras Cantons is a Liaison Officer for Dorcas in Syria. He graduated cum laude from the Conflict Studies and Human Rights Master’s program at Utrecht University and also holds a Master’s degree in International Relations, Security and Development from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. His research examines the humanitarian-development-peace nexus and processes of localization, with a particular interest in humanitarian access and governance in conflict-affected settings. He has published on the nexus in the Darién Gap and conducted research with the Dutch Relief Alliance on the operationalization of the triple nexus.
Photo by Ahmed akacha
