The humanitarian–development–peace nexus and UN 2.0: a field practitioner’s perspective on bridging silos for humanitarian impact

Mali has been grappling with a complex and deteriorating humanitarian crisis for over a decade, driven by protracted conflict, insecurity and climate shocks. Armed violence, particularly in the central and northern regions, has led to mass displacement, disrupted access to basic services, and fuelled severe protection risks for civilians. As of December 2024, over 6 million people require humanitarian assistance with acute needs in health, food security, water and sanitation, education, and protection. Humanitarian access is increasingly constrained by insecurity and administrative restrictions. This crisis coexists with fragile state structures, weak governance, and limited development presence, highlighting the urgency of integrated approaches across the humanitarian–development–peace (HDP) nexus.

From mandates to villages – a lesson from Goundam, 2023

In 2023, I sat in a tense meeting in Goundam, part of Mali’s volatile Timbuktu region, with local authorities, humanitarian partners and UN colleagues. A village chief had just reported that armed groups had burned down the only functioning health post in his commune. His question to us was simple but poignant: ‘Who here will help us rebuild it – today, not next year?’

Around the table, the answers revealed the fragmentation we still face. Humanitarian actors cited their mandates and funding constraints. Development agencies deemed the area too insecure for engagement. Peacekeeping colleagues pointed to their limited resources and narrow stabilisation remit. That moment crystallised for me the enduring gap between political aspiration and operational reality – between mandates drafted in headquarters and the lived experiences in places like Goundam.

This disconnect is emblematic of the challenges surrounding the HDP nexus. While the nexus is championed as a framework for coherence in fragile settings, too often it remains a concept confined to strategy papers and donor roundtables, disconnected from frontline realities.

Drawing on two decades of operational leadership in complex contexts with the United Nations (UN) and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), I share practical lessons from Mali on bridging these silos and how UN 2.0 reforms – emphasising data, digital innovation, behavioural science, strategic foresight, and results-based management – can help turn aspiration into action, particularly for humanitarian outcomes.

Understanding the nexus from the ground up

The nexus is an integrated approach that seeks to improve coherence, complementarity and collaboration between humanitarian action, development cooperation and peace efforts in crisis-affected settings. It recognises that addressing immediate humanitarian needs, supporting long-term development and sustaining peace cannot be pursued in isolation.

However, in practice, these pillars often operate in isolation as humanitarian agencies focus on life-saving aid, avoiding politically sensitive areas; development actors are hesitant to work where the state is absent; and peace actors focus on political processes, sometimes disconnected from community realities. The result is missed opportunities, duplication and reduced humanitarian impact. But targeted context-specific collaboration can change that.

What works: practical entry points for humanitarian impact

Joint assessments and planning

In Mondoro, central Mali, a town besieged by armed groups and cut off from food and health care, a coordinated response with MINUSMA (the UN peacekeeping force in Mali), Malian Defense and Security Forces (MSDFs), various UN agencies, and several INGOs was conducted to secure humanitarian access. Through coordinated planning, we negotiated safe humanitarian corridors – secured by MSDFs with the support of peacekeepers – and used MINUSMA air assets to airlift food (World Food Programme), medical supplies (World Health Organisation), children’s kits (UNICEF), and dignity kits (UN Population Fund). This effort also enabled health workers to assess needs and deliver critical services. This integrated approach between MINUSMA, UN agencies, INGOs and local authorities not only saved lives but also established sustained humanitarian access in one of Mali’s most volatile areas, significantly reducing mortality linked to preventable diseases.

Area-based programming

In northern Mali, UNICEF-led water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programming was strengthened by linking it with UN Development Programme (UNDP) livelihoods support and community security initiatives financed by MINUSMA’s Peacebuilding Fund. MINUSMA internal reports revealed that establishing protected water points in areas secured through community-policing programmes reduced the risk of gender-based violence for women collecting water, improved community acceptance of humanitarian actors, and enhanced the overall safety of humanitarian service delivery.

Embedding nexus structures in missions

This was achieved by embedding UN Country Team (UNCT) representatives directly into MINUSMA-led stabilisation planning and creating project review committees. Additionally, three funding mechanisms – Peacebuilding Fund, Quick Impact Projects (QIPs), and the Trust Fund for Peace and Security – were operating in silos. This challenge was addressed by employing a three-tiered strategy designed to realign vision, strategy and execution:

• Vision: We defined clear, mission-wide priorities to guide all funding decisions.
• Strategy: Established a Project Prioritisation Committee composed of senior mission representatives and, crucially, added the chair of the UNCT Programme Management Team as a full member. This restored trust and made inter-agency collaboration the norm rather than the exception.
• Execution: We streamlined technical project clearance, allowing committees to focus on vetting proposals for quality and feasibility.

The impact was immediate. Mission and UNCT priorities came into alignment, project approvals accelerated, and funding was deployed where it could make the greatest difference. Most importantly, this restructuring translated into faster, more coordinated responses on the ground, enabling humanitarian recovery actors to reach crisis-affected communities with the support they urgently needed.

Donor coordination platforms

Quarterly donor coordination meetings aligned funding with mission and UNCT priorities, fostering trust and reducing restrictive earmarking. By encouraging integrated proposals combining humanitarian and resilience components, we secured more flexible funding. Disbursement timelines for emergency projects improved by 30%, enabling timelier humanitarian responses.

What doesn’t work: persistent barriers in the nexus

Despite progress, several systemic barriers continue to undermine the promise of the nexus:

• Mandate and funding incoherence: Humanitarian funding is short-term and crisis-driven, while development aid is often tied to rigid government plans that overlook hard-to-reach areas. Peacebuilding funds, though flexible, are constrained by narrow mandates and political sensitivities. These silos make it difficult to pursue truly collective outcomes.
• Coordination fatigue without coherence: Humanitarian, development and peace actors juggle numerous clusters, committees and working groups that often lack clear links to joint priorities. Meetings risk becoming ends in themselves rather than vehicles for decisions that drive change on the ground.
• Unequal power dynamics: Humanitarian actors often dominate decision-making by virtue of scale and resource flows, leaving development and peace actors – and, critically, local stakeholders – with limited influence. This imbalance undermines the holistic vision of the nexus.
• Lack of institutional incentives: Collaboration frequently depends on individual champions rather than institutional systems. Without performance incentives, flexible pooled funding, or accountability frameworks, nexus engagement competes with – rather than complements – agency-specific priorities.
• Marginalised local perspectives: The voices of affected communities remain underrepresented in decisions about project selection, thematic priorities and geographic targeting. Without embedding local perspectives, nexus programming risks becoming top-down and disconnected from the people it aims to serve.

Addressing these barriers requires structural reform: flexible, multi-year financing; performance incentives for collaboration; platforms that connect rather than duplicate coordination efforts; and mechanisms to elevate local voices from consultation to co-decision-making.

Digital transformation in action: the project funds management system

One of the most transformative steps we took was the creation of the Project Funds Management System (PFMS). Previously, each funding mechanism operated in isolation, managed through separate spreadsheets and ad hoc tracking systems. The PFMS aimed to change that by creating a single, real-time dashboard that gave mission leadership, UN agencies and implementing partners unprecedented visibility over project pipelines, funding allocations and progress updates.

The results were immediate and measurable. Approval timelines for QIPs dropped by an average of 40%, and implementing partners could, for the first time, track their project status in real time. This system, powered by data and digital innovation, became a catalyst for collaboration by bridging information gaps and helping teams align resources for life-saving projects. In a context like Mali, where delays can be the difference between assistance arriving on time or not at all, this system gave us a sharper, faster and more responsive way of doing business.

Navigating humanitarian trade-offs and recognising comparative advantages

Integrating humanitarian, development and peacebuilding efforts inevitably presents trade-offs. For humanitarian actors, closer integration can risk compromising neutrality and independence when activities are associated with political or security agendas. In Mali, we navigated this by maintaining a clear distinction: life-saving humanitarian operations remained humanitarian-led, while joint planning primarily focused on resilience-building initiatives where collaboration added value.

The nexus only works when actors play to their comparative advantages. MINUSMA brought its political mandate and security footprint. UN agencies contributed their deep technical expertise and community trust. Humanitarian actors excelled at rapid, principled life-saving responses. Peace actors played a vital role in facilitating dialogue and stabilisation efforts. By recognising and respecting these strengths, we could connect efforts strategically, ensuring that each pillar delivered where it was strongest while working toward shared outcomes for communities in crisis.

UN 2.0: a catalyst for humanitarian outcomes

UN 2.0 encapsulates the Secretary-General’s vision of a modern UN system, rejuvenated by a forward-thinking culture, and empowered by cutting-edge skills fit for the 21st century. Leveraging our diversity, we are striving towards this vision with a powerful fusion of data, innovation, digital, foresight and behavioural science expertise – a dynamic combination that we call the ‘quintet of change’. Grounded in a stronger organisational culture, UN 2.0 signifies our transformation towards more agile, diverse, responsive and impactful United Nations entities – to accelerate systemic shifts that deliver for all, including women and girls.

For humanitarian actors, this means:

• Data and digital tools: Real-time dashboards like PFMS inform access negotiations, prioritisation of aid, and funding decisions.
• Behavioural science: Community perception studies help tailor humanitarian messaging to build trust in contested areas.
• Strategic foresight: Scenario planning supports anticipatory action in volatile regions, improving the timeliness of aid delivery.

Lessons for humanitarian programming

For humanitarian organisations, the lessons from Mali are clear: the nexus works best when actors engage strategically, protect their principles, and leverage each other’s strengths.

• Engage early and proactively in joint analysis and planning processes to ensure humanitarian priorities are embedded in collective outcomes from the outset.
• Advocate for flexible, multi-year funding that reduces earmarking and enables rapid pivots in volatile environments. Building trust with donors is key to unlocking such resources.
• Leverage digital tools like PFMS to improve transparency, track funding pipelines in real-time, and enhance joint prioritisation. Data-driven coordination strengthens accountability to both donors and affected populations.
• Safeguard humanitarian principles by maintaining clear operational boundaries while collaborating on resilience and recovery efforts, ensuring neutrality and independence are not compromised.
• Play to comparative advantages: Partner with development actors for long-term systems strengthening, with peace actors for mediation and community dialogue, and with missions for political access and security. The nexus should connect, not rather, blur these distinct roles.

Ultimately, for humanitarian actors, nexus engagement is not just about collaboration – it is about using every tool and partnership available to save lives today while creating pathways for lasting resilience.

From nexus aspiration to humanitarian reality

The nexus is a practical necessity in protracted crises like Mali, where fragmented efforts can cost lives. When implemented thoughtfully, bridging silos has delivered real results: faster aid delivery, expanded humanitarian access, stronger community acceptance, and improved protection outcomes.

Success has not come from merging mandates but from leveraging the unique comparative advantages of each actor to create a response greater than the sum of its parts.

With UN 2.0 reforms, the UN now has the tools – data, digital platforms, behavioural insights, and strategic foresight – to hardwire this integrated way of working into field operations. But tools alone are not enough. This transformation will require sustained investment, flexible funding, and a culture of trust and collaboration at the frontlines. For humanitarian actors, engaging in this shift is no longer optional. It is essential – not only to save lives today but to help crisis-affected communities chart a path toward dignity, resilience and lasting peace.

Hama Amadou Oumarou is a senior international development and crisis response professional with over 20 years of humanitarian experience, including 13 years with the United Nations.