HUMANITARIAN-DEVELOPMENT NEXUS:

(1)

HUMANITARIAN-DEVELOPMENT

NEXUS:

A Study of European Aid LRRD Policies,

Financing, and Programming Tools.

Laura Pagano

December 2020

Supervisor: Dr. Talita Cetinoglu

University: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his/her hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

(2)

1

Abstract

Historically, humanitarian and development sectors have been sharply separated, by different principles, the focus of aid delivery, and modus operandi. The change in nature, scale, and complexity of modern crises is however challenging the role and scope of each sector. The disconnect between the two forms of aid is increasingly been reduced and the international aid delivery system is becoming progressively more integrated. The controversial debate around the issue of the disconnect between humanitarian and development assistance originates in the 1980s and is known as the humanitarian-development nexus. The European Commission (EC) has been the first institution to pioneer and formulate a holistic approach. Established in 1996, the linking relief, rehabilitation, and development (LRRD) approach is the longest-used and the most supported approach at the European level. This thesis aims to understand whether and how the humanitarian and development nexus is reflected in the European Aid’s policies on LRRD and whether it has been integrated into the financial instruments and project cycle processes. Through the exclusive use of qualitative desk research, a vast body of literature was studied. These data were analysed through a mixed methodological approach composed of argumentative discourse analysis and policy implementation approach. The analysis showed that the development of EC’s policies, financial and programmatic instruments can be divided into two phases. The first period from 1996 until 2013, does not reflect the evolution of the humanitarian nexus debate and promote a continuum linear modality of aid. Nevertheless, in the second phase, from 2013 onwards, the EC began a shift towards a holistic contiguum approach at a policy, financial, and programmatic level. Moreover, the study showed that the development sector, largely absent from both the nexus debates and from contexts of protracted crises, also displays a very low level of integration of the LRRD contiguum approach at policy, financial and programmatic levels in the case of the European Aid. These results suggest that even though the European Aid system has progressively incorporated the nexus debate, more steps forward are needed. Financial and programmatic tools need to be actualized to achieve a higher level of coherence between policies, financial and programmatic tools, of both humanitarian and developmental sectors.

(3)

2

List of Abbreviations

AfC Agenda for Change

AGIR Alliance Globale pour l’initiative Rèsilience Sahel DCI Development Cooperation Instrument

DEVCO DG for International Cooperation and Development

DG ECHO Commission’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EAR Emergency Aid Reserve EC European Commission ECR Enhances Response Capacity EDF European Development Fund EEAS European External Action Service ENI European Neighbourhood Instrument

EU European Union

EUTF EU Trust Fund

GB Grand Bargain

GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship HIP Humanitarian Implementation Plan

HQ Headquarter

ICF Inner City Funds

IcPS Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace IHA Instrument of Humanitarian Cooperation IHL International Humanitarian Law

(6)

5 LRRD Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development

MSF Médecins Sans Frontières

NDICI Neighborhood, Development, and International Instrument OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PCM Project Cycle Management

SHARE Supporting Horn of Africa’s Resilience

SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SWD Staff Working Document

(7)

6

1. Introduction

This thesis investigates the issue of the disconnect between the humanitarian and the development sectors in contexts of protracted crisis, with a focus on the concept of the linking relief rehabilitation and development (LRRD) approach as an answer to such problem. In particular, this research focuses on the case of the European Commission (EC) and examines the LRRD approach at the policy, financial and programmatic levels.

This first introductory chapter will present the problem statement and formulate the research questions around which the thesis evolves. To begin, the first chapter gives a short summary of the state of the literature on the humanitarian-development nexus. The chapter will further explain the methodological approach selected to conduct the research and its limitations. A further subsection introduces the objectives and the academic and practical relevance of this study for the humanitarian sector. Finally, a brief description of the structure of the thesis is presented.

1.1. Problem statement

Historically, humanitarian aid and development aid have been assigned to operate in different contexts. The development sector worked in sufficiently stable countries, aiming at strengthening the local governmental structures. Instead, humanitarian aid operated in contexts of protracted crises, where organisations worked around governments, that were not considered “legitimate or effective” (Macrae, 2012, p.8). The two sectors had a different focus to aid delivery. Development was concerned with building “sustainable economic, social and political systems” (Macrae, 2012, p.8), while humanitarian aid was focused on saving lives, overlooking matters of sustainability (Macrae, 2012, p.8).

The definitions, roles, and responsibilities, traditionally assigned to humanitarian and development cooperation, are being challenged by the changing nature, scale, and complexity of modern crises. The separation between different forms of aid is increasingly fading. The international community has been investing many resources in the development of interventions that can adequately address the new reality of crises.

In 2019, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report surveying the opinion of people affected by crisis on how humanitarian

(8)

7 aid addressed their needs. From the research, OECD identifies that although humanitarian aid is indispensable, on its own, it cannot cover all basic needs of affected populations. In support of this study, Van Hear argues that, especially in protracted crises, those who receive humanitarian basic assistance display the need of regaining “financial autonomy and sustainable livelihoods” as a primary necessity (Van Hear, 2011, p.10). The author adds that often it is the same inability to obtain self-reliance that causes secondary migration and the protraction of the crisis (2011, p.10).

As Otto and Weingartner (2013, p. 13-14) argue, “humanitarian crises do not take place in isolated environments.” … “long term poverty, state fragility, and extensive humanitarian needs often occur concurrently and are inter-related”. Accordingly, supporting the voice of many experts, the authors claim that the aid system should properly address this multi-layered and complex reality. As short-, medium- and long-term needs are present at the same time in the lives of affected people, humanitarian and development sectors must provide simultaneous specialized assistance (2013, p. 13-14). The issue of the disconnect between humanitarian and development assistance in contexts of protracted crisis is not new. For many decades, aid workers, policy-makers, and development practitioners have been debating on the most effective manner in which different forms of aid should address vulnerability, taking into consideration the many layers of needs of people affected by protracted crises (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, p,3). This debate is defined as the humanitarian-development nexus (OCHA, n.d., para.2; UNICEF and EU, n.d., para.2).

The humanitarian world has been divided over the issue of humanitarian-development nexus. On the one hand, organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières(MSF) have been strong supporters of the argument that the reduction of the division between humanitarian and development will result in “the incorporation of the humanitarian assistance into a broader development resilience agenda” (MSF, 2016), thus subordinating humanitarian goals to developmental ones. On the other hand, many organizations support an inclusive approach that seeks to reduce the distance among sectors (Medinilla, 2016, p.5).

Many approaches have been developed to address this controversial matter. Every approach takes on a different perspective. Nevertheless, most of the concepts share the same core focus: ensuring development intervention since the early stages of the crisis,

(9)

8 creating a smooth transition avoiding discontinuous aid delivery, and use development cooperation to support prevention and disaster risk reduction (Steets, 2011, p.12).

Among the different approaches, linking relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) is the only approach that takes into consideration most of the challenges of the disconnect, thus providing the most comprehensive and holistic answer (Otto and Weingartner, 2013,p. 15).

The EC, as one of the pioneers who formulate the nexus, is the focus of this research. The EC’s answer to the issue of the disconnect among different types of aid is represented by the linking relief, rehabilitation and development approach (LRRD). This approach was formally established in the 1996 official Communication1, Council regulation 1257/96 (EC, 1996), and was further modified in the 2001 Communication (EC, 2001). Since then, the EC has developed numerous policy documents, instruments, and studies to ensure the effective implementation of these policies (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, p.41).

The EC, financing over € 50 billion per year to help overcome poverty and advance global development, is the largest world donor of international aid (European Commission, n.d., para.1). Within the Commission, international aid is divided into humanitarian and developmental aid, which are provided by the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) and by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO), respectively. DG DEVCO follows the principles of “country (and democratic) ownership, alignment and mutual accountability” (Medinilla, 2016, p.6). DG ECHO is grounded on international humanitarian law (IHL) and on the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. To ensure that these principles are respected, ECHO works independently from the other EU’s departments.

Despite a shift in interest towards the concept of “resilience”, that is believed to be more promising in creating stronger linkages between relief and development (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, p.15), there has been renewed attention on the concept of LRRD (Mosel and Lavine, 2014, p. 1). A demonstration of the relevance of this approach is the inclusion of LRRD in the Good Humanitarian Donorship’s list of the 23 principles and

(10)

9 good practices in 2003 (GHD, 2016). As stated in the ninth principle: “Provide humanitarian assistance in ways that are supportive of recovery and long-term development, striving to ensure support, where appropriate, to the maintenance and return of sustainable livelihoods and transitions from humanitarian relief to recovery and development activities” (GHD, 2016).

Further, the first World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) held in May 2016 in Istanbul, marked a turning point in the nexus debate. The Summit focused on the present humanitarian and development tools and operations, and how these tools inadequately address the needs of people affected by protracted crises. Acknowledging that the nature and shape of crises have changed, the summit sought to take a further step towards a transformation of the existing international aid model (OCHA, 2016).

As described in the full report of the Summit (2015): “A new framework of cooperation is needed among humanitarian, development, climate change and peacebuilding actors to manage and find solutions to situations of prolonged crises. This framework should be built on long-term commitments that address immediate life-saving needs alongside underlying causes by making simultaneous use of all instruments, underpinned by shared risk and context analysis and joint, outcome-oriented planning.”(World Humanitarian Summit secretariat, 2015, p.xi).

Following the Summit, DG ECHO and DG DEVCO have adapted the LRRD approach making it more systematic. This change represented the willingness of the EC to strengthen the humanitarian and development nexus in fragile contexts. According to Inner City Found (ICF)2, although there are positive developments, such as “investments in preparedness and in community resilience and vision towards long-term sustainable solutions to protracted displacement” (ICF,2018, p.148), an evaluation of these efforts is still not available (ICF, 2018, p.148).

The EC has invested many resources in reviews, studies, and proposals intending to improve the implementation of the LRRD approach. A variety of instruments were developed to make projects more flexible and adaptable to the reality of the field, such as the Instrument for Humanitarian Aid (IHA), Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI),

2_{ICF is a global consulting services company that has been responsible to evaluate of the EU}

(11)

10 The Instrument for Stability, the European Development Fund, and the EU Trust Funds (EUTFs) (Medinilla et al.,2016, p. 35-36-37).

According to ICF (2018), even though the EC is supportive of the LRRD approach at a policy level, the implementation remains challenging. The limited creation of a “complementary approach and handovers”, regulated by clear guidelines and operation frameworks “between DG ECHO and DEVCO” (ICF, 2018, p.15), have been identified as one of the main reasons hindering the creation of a holistic approach to aid (ICF, 2018, p.15).

1.2. Research Questions

This thesis examines the approach that the EC has developed to address the issue of the disconnect between different forms of aid. More specifically, the study analyses how the humanitarian and development nexus debate is reflected in this approach. The study will be conducted by looking at the EC’s policies that establish and regulate LRRD and the extent to which the EC has ensured their implementation through the development of adequate financial instruments and programmatic guidelines.

To conduct this research, the thesis will revolve around the following main research question:

Whether and how the humanitarian-development nexus is reflected in the EC’s policies on LRRD and integrated into financial instruments and project cycle processes?

To answer this question the following sub-questions were formulated to build a theoretical framework on which to base the analysis section:

1. What is the concept of LRRD?

a. What are relief, rehabilitation, and development?

b. To what extent the development of each field has been reflected in the development of LRRD?

2. How has the LRRD approach developed?

3. What are the main challenges and assumptions of this concept?

Then, in the light of the theoretical framework, the following sub-questions were developed so as to address the main research question and understand how the European Commission has addressed the humanitarian and development nexus in the context of

(12)

11 protracted crisis. After giving a brief overview of what DG ECHO and DG DEVCO are the following sub-questions are examined:

4. What policies have the EC created to establish the LRRD approach and how have they evolved?

5. What financial instruments have been developed to guarantee the applicability of LRRD?

6. How have the key features of the LRRD contiguum approach been integrated into the policy cycle processes?

It is important to underline that this study does not aim to assess the efficiency or success of the LRRD approach in the EC’s aid operations. Rather, the objective is to study how the debate of the nexus is represented in EC’s policies and then whether and how the challenges and assumptions identified in the theoretical framework have been incorporated in programming guidelines.

1.3. The aim and objectives

As previously explained, the aim of the thesis is to study how the nexus debate is reflected in the EC’s policies and the way in which these have been integrated into financial instruments and the project cycle management guidelines. To frame the topics analysed and to make the research feasible three objectives have been set for this thesis:

1. To present a detailed literature review of the concept of linking rehabilitation relief and development (LRRD) and define the main background of the study. 2. To study the case of the EC’s policies on LRRD, the financial instruments and programmatic guidelines that have been developed to ensure the applicability of the policies.

3. To analyse how DG ECHO and DG DEVCO the nexus’ challenges and ways to improve the disconnect between the humanitarian and the development sectors.

1.4. Methodology

The thesis is based on the exclusive use of desk review. The choice of qualitative research method is motivated by the availability of a vast body of secondary literature that enables the creation of a sound argument. Nevertheless, the absence of empirical data

(13)

12 represents a limitation to the validity of the arguments. This research’s weakness could be overcome by adding interviews with policymakers.

The use of a mixed methodological approach has been chosen to conduct the research. Firstly, an argumentative discourse analysis method is used to understand the extent to which the EC’s LRRD policies reflect the humanitarian-development nexus debate. Secondly, the researcher has chosen a policy implementation analysis methodological approach to study the extent to which the EC has incorporated policies on LRRD in financial instruments and programmatic guidelines of both its humanitarian and developmental sectors. Following, the two methodological approaches are presented and justified.

Developed by Hajer, the argumentative discourse analysis approach is “based on the assumption that language profoundly shapes our view of the world and of reality, instead of merely being a neutral medium mirroring it” (2006, p. 66). According to Colebatch, “policy is a process of structured interaction between a range of bodies with particular specialized interests, mostly inside governments” (2006, p.39-40). This understanding of how policy is constructed is based on a specific epistemological assumption determining the focal aspect to be studied when looking at policy. Following this assumption, two main elements are identified: discourse analysis and how discourses are framed (2006, p.39-40). As proposed by Browne and Coffey, the corresponding methodological orientation is the interpretative approach to policy study. This approach examines how policies are framed and how they reflect the social construction of a given debate (Browne and Coffey, 2019, p. 1032).

Through the use of argumentative discourse analysis, the researcher will study the way in which the humanitarian-development nexus debate is presented in the EC’s policies regulating LRRD. To conduct the research, a selection of the main policies on LRRD is scanned and attention is placed on the terminology used by the EC. Words such as continuum, contiguum, linear, holistic, comprehensive, gap, bridge, nexus, etc., will be searched for and analysed. Moreover, the researcher will try to identify whether the main concepts of LRRD are addressed in the studied documents. The following secondary sources have been selected to carry out the analysis: Official EC’s Communications, EC’s briefings, Parliamentary briefings, EC’s reports, and review documents on LRRD policies. The analysis of these documents is going to be supported with experts’, academic’s, policymakers’, and practitioners’ arguments presented in articles of journals

(14)

13 or book’s chapters. This analysis serves to determine how the EC has incorporated the nexus debate in its LRRD policies.

In the second part of the study, together with the argumentative discourse analysis, the researcher uses a second methodological approach: the policy implementation approach. As defined by Peters et al. (2014) policy implementation research is "the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation—the act of carrying an intention into effect, which in health research can be policies, programmes, or individual practices” (p.1). Further, the authors specify that this type of research "can consider any aspect of implementation, including the factors affecting implementation, the process of implementation, and the results of implementation, including how to introduce potential solutions"(p.1). The intention of implementation research is to study the reasons and modalities through which interventions work and how they can be improved (p.1). Understanding how context influences the implementation of policies is a key factor in implementation research. The authors claim that the focus can be placed on understanding the structure of the system responsible for the implementation, by looking at "the roles played by the main departments involved in the implementation process” (p.1). This methodological approach is based on the assumption that policy implementation occurs as part of a "complex adaptive system", made up of a large number of contextual factors that interact with each other and change over time (p.4).

The present thesis studies the extent to which the EC has ensured the implementation of LRRD policies. The research will focus on the phase of the implementation process that involves the incorporation of the policies in the financial instruments and in programmatic guidelines used by DG ECHO and DG DEVCO. Therefore, aspects such as the final results of the implementations are not addressed in this thesis.

The choice of studying funding mechanism and programmatic guidelines is motivated by the assumption that only if the LRRD policies are incorporated in these two aspects of the implementation process, this latter will be enforced in humanitarian and development interventions. The focus on the financial instruments is justified by the importance that these tools have in operationalizing humanitarian and developmental aid consistent with an LRRD approach. The EC’s funding mechanisms are established in official Regulations that indicate how they can be allocated. It follows that the Regulations need to include the circumstances in which the LRRD approach is most

(15)

14 needed. Additionally, these tools should allow for specific LRRD modalities of implementation.

The inclusion of the policies in DG ECHO’s and DG DEVCO’s programmatic guidelines is the second fundamental aspect of the analysis. The tool that the EC uses to establish how programming is conducted is the Project Cycle Management (PCM) Guidelines. The PCM is the guiding instrument that is used to implement both humanitarian and developmental operations. By establishing and following specific guidelines, organizations are required to place effort in specific aspects of the planning and operation design. This results in the increase of quality of interventions, as well as in the insurance that specific changes in the way in which projects are conducted take place. Therefore, only by incorporating LRRD policies in the PCMs, the EC would ensure that LRRD policies are implemented.

A variety of relevant sources will be analysed through this approach. To undertake the financial analysis the researcher uses the official Regulations establishing the financial instruments. To research the programmatic level three main PCMs are used. The first one is the 2004 Project Cycle Management Guidelines (EC, 2004) that has a focus on PCM of development and cooperation sector of the EC. The second document is the ECHO Manual Project Cycle Management (EC, 2005) that instead regulates PCM for EC’s humanitarian aid sector. The third document is the Single Form Guidelines – Updated on 01.01.2019 (ECHO, 2019). This latter is the main instrument of the Framework Partnership Agreement and presents all the project’s requisites that partner organizations have to comply with to receive ECHO funding. The Sigle Form covers in more detail many of the aspects of the 2005 PCM ECHO Manual.

1.5. Relevance of the study to the humanitarian field

The progressive change in nature, scope, and gravity of humanitarian crises, together with the worsening of global poverty and vulnerability, is making protracted crisis longer and more frequent. This context has forced the international community to face the appropriateness of the modality of aid delivery of both humanitarian and development sectors in fragile contexts (OCHA, 2016). The EC’s answer to this issue has been the LRRD approach. Developed in 1996, this approach is the oldest solution to the disconnect issue, still in use after more than two decades.

(16)

15 In the report on “States of Fragility” published by the OECD (2018), the following alarming data are described: almost 1.8 billion people live in fragile contexts. 80% of the world’s poorest are concentrated in these countries. Experts estimate that the combination of vulnerability and poverty converged in these regions is going to make the figures worsen, seeing the number of people living in fragile countries rise to 2.3 billion by 2030 (OECD, 2018, p. 3 to 7).

The increase in poverty and vulnerability also plays a role in the increase in conflicts. In 2016, the highest number of countries affected by conflicts in the last thirty years was reported, which caused the death of close to 560.000 people (OECD, 2018, p. 3 to 7). Conflicts are not the only factor that aggravates vulnerability, needs, and poverty. Natural disasters are also causing millions of people to leave their homes. Data shows that the global number of displaced people has reached its highest rate since the Second World War (OECD, 2018, p. 3 to 7).

The combination of all these factors creates a spiral that has negative mutual effects, increasing the lifespan of crisis and making them progressively more protracted in time. To answer these changes, humanitarian aid has augmented exponentially in size, cost, and duration in the last decade. OCHA (n.d.) reports that the size of the appeals for humanitarian relief interventions has increased by 400% since the last decade. The protracted length of crises is reflected in longer humanitarian interventions: currently, an inter-agency humanitarian appeal lasts seven years on average, compared with the so-called traditional six months duration of a relief aid intervention (OCHA, n.d.). As such, the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the commitment of the international community to reduce global needs and vulnerabilities, while meeting all levels of needs (UN, 2019).

After having set the importance of addressing the topic of humanitarian and development nexus, due to the worsening reality of global crises, the thesis will move on with the explanation of the selection of the case of the EC’s solution to the disconnect among sectors. Firstly, since the EC is one of the largest world donors, the LRRD approach has received ample support and is the most used approach in the European contexts, especially among donors (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, p.25-26). Secondly, the EC is one of the first organizations that pioneered and formulated a holistic nexus approach. Thirdly, the EC has proven to be committed to the development and implementation of the LRRD approach by creating a large body of policies and financial

(17)

16 and programmatic tools, to ensure its implementation. However, the reduction of the division between sectors showed slow improvements (ICF, 2018, p.118). ICF reports that the greatest challenge in the realization of the LRRD policies lies in their operationalization (ICF, 2018, p.15).

A gap in the literature was found in the study of EC’s policies on LRRD from 1996 to today, through the use of analytical interpretation and implementation policy methodologies. Moreover, the literature displayed a further gap in the study of the EU aid programmatic tools in light of the LRRD approach.

By undertaking this study, the thesis highlights whether the EC’s policies reflect the humanitarian-development nexus as well as how the policies have been incorporated into financial instruments and programme cycles. To address the issue of the disconnect across sectors, from the literature, six main issues were identified, together with four recommendations on how to overcome the disconnect. The EU policies, financial and programmatic tools are going to be assessed primarily against the four recommendations. Attention will also be placed on whether and how the six challenges are addressed. This research will contribute to understanding more in-depth the LRRD approach, as well as to highlight elements that might hinder the humanitarian-development nexus.

1.6. Outline

This first chapter introduced the research question and methodology of the thesis, the main objectives, and the relevance of the study. Furthermore, a brief explanation of the problem statement as well as a short description of the literature review were presented.

Chapter two is dedicated to describing the theoretical framework of this study by providing a conceptual background. First, a literature review describes the different forms of aid that compose the LRRD approach, the evolution of this latter as well as its challenges and propositions to solve the issue of the disconnect among sectors.

In light of the issues identified in the theoretical framework, the third chapter examines the case of the EC’s policies on LRRD. The first section presents the departments responsible for policy development, and implementation of the Commission: DG ECHO and DG DEVCO, and EEAS. The second section analyses the development of EC’s policies on LRRD. Further, the main financial instruments used by DG ECHO

(18)

17 and DG DEVCO are studied to understand to what extent the LRRD policies have been implemented at a financial level.

The fourth chapter covers a detailed analysis of the Project Cycle Management guidelines of both ECHO and DEVCO. The four LRRD’s propositions on how to address the issue of the disconnect that have been identified in chapter two, are used to determine whether the EC’s has incorporated at a programmatic level the contiguum LRRD approach. The chapter is composed of four sections, each focusing on one criterion, against which the three main PCM guidelines tools are analysed. The last section shows the final results of the analysis. Finally, the fifth chapter is dedicated to final conclusions, presents a summary of the study as well as academic and practical recommendations.

(19)

18

2. Theoretical framework: LRRD

Through an extensive and in-depth literature review, the thesis aims to study the humanitarian and development nexus debate with a specific focus on the LRRD approach. Firstly, this chapter will focus on the constituent elements of the LRRD approach, namely humanitarian, relief and development aids. The chapter will identify the main aspects of each sector as well as the influence that these characteristics had on the evolution of LRRD. Then, the investigation will move forward analysing the concept of LRRD itself focusing on its main characteristics, history, milestones, challenges, and propositions.

The analysis is based on the arguments proposed by the most influential authors in the LRRD debate Otto and Weingartner (2013); Mosel and Lavine (2014); Christoplos (2006); Buchman-Maxwell (1994); Harmer and Macrae (2004), Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri (2005); Hinds (2015) among others.

This chapter is divided in five sections. The first one generally presents the concept of LRRD. The second section is an overview of the main characteristics of each sector and is divided in three subsections that address, respectively humanitarian aid, rehabilitation aid and development aid. In each subsections the paper focuses on the principles and modus operandi of each sector, since these are critical elements for the LRRD approach that presupposes strong cooperation among sectors. When addressing humanitarian aid, the literature review shows that humanitarians are divided on the LRRD approach. This disagreement is represented by the opposing concepts of humanitarian exceptionalism and exclusivity.

In the subsection describing development cooperation, the research will not investigate the wide varieties of theories that characterise this sector. Rather, given the focus on LRRD in settings of protracted crisis, a literature review of the specific modus operandi and involvement of the development sector in fragile contexts will be described. The traditional distinction between humanitarian relief and development has revolved around three main elements: time frame, purpose, and mode of action.

In section 2.3., the study presents a literature review of the history of the LRRD approach that is divided in two main phases: a continuum and a contiguum one. The first

(20)

19 approach supports a chronological and linear modality to aid delivery, while the contiguum one sustains a holistic, comprehensive, and continuous approach to aid.

Finally, sections 2.4 and 2.5 are dedicated respectively, to the challenges of the nexus and to the LRRD propositions to solve the issue of the disconnect among sectors identified form the literature.

2.1. The concept of LRRD

In the EC context, linking relief rehabilitation and development (LRRD) is widely accepted as the prevailing approach to address the humanitarian-development nexus debate. The concept was first developed by the EC in 1996, in the Council regulation 1257/96, and was further modified in the 2001 Communication. The first conceptualization defined the LRRD approach as the link between relief, rehabilitation and development sectors and was finalized to improving the coherence and efficiency of the EU’s aid delivery (Ramet, 2012, p.4-5). Since then, the EC has developed numerous policy documents, instruments, and studies to ensure their effective implementation (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, p.41). Chapter three will present a detailed account of the EC’s support of the LRRD approach. This approach is now broadly used by donors, humanitarian actors, researchers, and increasingly by the development sector (Steets, 2011, p.12).

Even though the term LRRD has not been used consistently since the 1980s onwards, the concept of linking relief rehabilitation and development has been at the center of the transformation of the aid sector (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, 25-26-27). This is also highlighted by the inclusion of the notion as the 9th principle of the Good Humanitarian Donorship list in 2003 which suggests that humanitarian assistance should be provided: “in ways that are supportive of recovery and long-term development, striving to ensure support, where appropriate to the maintenance and return of sustainable livelihoods and transitions from humanitarian relief to recovery and development” (GHD, 2003).

Another landmark regarding the relevance of the concept in the humanitarian and development nexus debate is the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. On this occasion, the international response efforts were analysed through the lens of LRRD. The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition concluded that the focus had to shift from the efficiency of linkages between relief rehabilitation and development to the selection of partners and the scope

(21)

20 of the intervention, with emphasis on long term engagement (Brusset, E. et al., 2009, p.47-48).

2016 marked another key moment in the humanitarian-development nexus debate. In May, the World Humanitarian Summit was held in Istanbul, its goal was to fundamentally reform the humanitarian aid industry to react more efficiently to today’s crises (World Humanitarian Summit secretariat, 2015 p.6). From seven thematic roundtables, several core commitments were presented, and participants committed to supporting them. Four of the thematic areas acknowledged the importance of creating synergy between humanitarian aid, development, conflict prevention, and climate change (Agenda for Humanity, 2016).

Furthermore, the Summit highlighted the deep division within the humanitarian sector concerning the humanitarian-development nexus debate. Nevertheless, the majority believed that the best strategy to improve the answer to crises is through increasing coherence and complementarity between the humanitarian and the development sectors (Medinilla, 2016, p.6). This stand was supported by the UN Secretary General’s report One World One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, which called for transcending “the humanitarian–development divide” (2016, p. 28).

This narrative is opposed by the argument that such cohesion can lead to the instrumentalization and politicization of humanitarian aid. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) pulled out of the summit affirming that the summit itself was an expression of this tendency. In May 2016, MSF released a statement affirming that: “the WHS’s focus would seem to be an incorporation of humanitarian assistance into a broader development and resilience agenda” rather than addressing “the weaknesses in humanitarian action and emergency response, particularly in conflict areas or epidemic situations” (MSF, 2016). Furthermore, in the same year, MSF stopped accepting funding from the EU Member States as a sign of protest against the EC’s response to the refugee crisis. As expressed by MSF’s international secretary general, Jérôme Oberreit: the “European response focused on deterrence rather than providing people with the assistance and protection they need” (Kingsley, 2016, para.6).

Of relevance for the European context, is the 2016 EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (EUGS). The document communicates the security interests of the EU’s external action (2016, p.9), with interventions focusing on countries to the East and

(22)

21 South of the EU (2016, p.28). Further, an open call is made for creating a bridge between development cooperation and security policies. Finally, the document expresses the need for stronger coherence in the EU external action, to be achieved through a “joined-up approach to its humanitarian, development, migration, trade, investment, infrastructure, education, health and research policies, as well as improve horizontal coherence between the EU and its Member States” (EUGS, 2016, p. 26).

The development of the debate shows that there is interest in addressing the challenges of the system and in finding new solutions. Despite divisions among humanitarian actors, the narrative of reducing the distance between different types of aid is prevailing.

2.2. Main characteristics and differences among sectors: What is meant by relief, rehabilitation and development?

The EC, in the 2001 Communication on LRRD, describes the differences between relief and development activities as follows: “The former addresses the immediate needs of individuals affected by crises and is provided mainly through non-governmental and international organisations. The latter aims to support autonomous development policies and strategies and is provided mainly under co-operation programmes agreed with the partner country.” … “The corresponding instruments and working methods differ in their time perspective, the implementing partners, the role of national authorities and the content of interventions.” (EC, 2001, p.3).

It is not possible to find a universal agreement on the definition of humanitarian, rehabilitation, and development aid. Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the main characteristics of each sector and how they operate to comprehend how they have been collaborating. Since these three sectors are at the core of the LRRD approach, it is logical to presuppose that many of the LRRD’s challenges and strengths originate in each separate sector. The following section, through an extensive literature review, presents the most significant aspects and milestones of each sector and how these have influenced the evolution of the LRRD approach.

2.2.1. Humanitarian aid

Humanitarian aid or action can be broadly defined as the act of providing short term protection and material assistance to people in need and has been present throughout

(23)

22 human history. However, the modern concept of humanitarianism, as the impartial, independent and neutral provision of aid to those in immediate danger can be traced back to the later half of the 20th century (Davey and Borton et al., 2013, p.29-31). Despite its recency, this sector has greatly changed through time, being shaped by the complex progression of world events.

The humanitarian system is based on four leading principles: humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Following the definitions provided by OCHA (2012): Humanity means that human suffering must be addressed in any circumstance. Life, health, and respect for human beings are at the core of humanitarian action. The neutrality principle mandates that aid does not take part with any side of conflicts or disputes. Further, by impartiality, it is meant that aid is provided to any person in need without any form of discrimination. Finally, independence stands for the autonomy of humanitarian aid from any political, military, or economic objective that any actor might have in the area where aid is delivered (OCHA, 2012, p.1).

The humanitarian principles have been integrated into humanitarian bureaucracy and legal system. In 1991, they were acknowledged as humanitarian action’s standards by the UN and by States in the General Assembly Resolution 46/182. The progressive institutionalization of the principles is a key factor when studying LRRD. Many authors argue that the fundamental importance of the principles for the humanitarian sector represents an obstacle for the LRRD approach that requires a certain level of compromise on some of the principles to reach effective cooperation among sectors.

Furthermore, another central characteristic of the humanitarian field is the legal normative framework on which the sector is based, namely the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Also known as laws of armed conflict, IHL consists of a set of rules that regulates warfare, limiting its effects. It aims to ensure safe access and assistance for humanitarian organizations, as well as protection of civilians, refugees, prisoners of war, the wounded and the sick (ICRC, 2004, para. 1-6). IHL derives its legal basis on the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and in its 1977 and 2005 additional protocols. Most of IHL’s provisions have been accepted as customary law3_{. However,} due to the new types of warfare, violations of IHL are increasingly more frequent. Such

3_{Customary law is considered as general practice, is accepted as law regardless of the existence}

(24)

23 violations represent one of the greatest challenges of the humanitarian sector nowadays (ECHO, 2020b, para. 2-3). IHL is a key aspect in the LRRD approach debate because divides the humanitarian and development sectors apart. While humanitarians believe that the IHL imperative of reducing the impact of conflict on civilians is an obligation of States and non-state actors, including development organizations (Schmitz, 2019, p.1055), the development sector does not recognise this responsibility (Bennet and Foley, 2016, p.48).

IHL is also the base of the guiding principles presented above. Despite these principles have been accepted at a global level, their legitimacy as the general standard has been largely debated. On this issue, humanitarian actors are separated into two opposing sides. On the one hand, the classic or Dunantist humanitarianism and on the other that of new humanitarianism. These viewpoints are characterized respectively by the concepts of exceptionalism and inclusivity (Bennet and Foley, 2016, p.46).

Following Bennet and Foley (2016), the concept of “humanitarian exceptionalism” supports the idea that the humanitarian sector is different from all other forms of aid. Two main factors mark the distinction of this sector from the others: the humanitarian principles and the normative legal framework regulating this field (p.48). Egeland et al. (2011) argue that the principles ensure the distinction of the humanitarian objectives from political ones, and by doing so ensure the access of humanitarian organizations in conflict zones (p.4).

A further central notion of “humanitarian exceptionalism” is the humanitarian imperative. This latter consists of the moral duty of humanitarians to provide immediate assistance to “all citizens of all countries” based on need, being nonpartisan with any state’s interests or objective (ICRC, 1995, p.3).

Since the 1990s, the sector witnessed a growing challenge to the concept of exceptionalism (Gordon and Donini, 2016, p.85). Macrae (2009) describes how, after the cold war, the scope of humanitarian action began to expand towards development assistance policies. This new tendency of humanitarianism aimed at addressing the root causes of crisis while addressing urgent needs was defined as “new humanitarianism” (p. 89). Bennet and Foley define this new debate opposed to “exceptionalism” as “inclusivity” (2016, p.46). Collison and Elhawary (2012, p.13) argue that a group of humanitarian actors sought a greater degree of coherence between humanitarian aid and other forms of aid. This idea was based on the belief that only through coherence among

(25)

24 different sectors it is possible to overcome the challenges of humanitarian aid while “effectively meeting development security and political objectives” (p.13). Following Fox (2001), the new humanitarianism pushed for three main changes: “the integration of human rights and peacebuilding into the humanitarian orbit; the ending of the distinction between development and humanitarian relief; and the rejection of the principle of neutrality” (p.276). In this sense, new humanitarianism looks beyond the momentary sufferance to see “the long-term political impact of relief and is prepared to see humanitarian aid used as a tool to achieve human rights and political goals.” (Fox, 2001, p. 275). Supporting this perspective, Slim (2003) affirms that operating in a “political world”, “humanitarianism is a political project”, with a specific political mission: “to restrain and ameliorate the use of organised violence in human relations and to engage with power in order to do so” (p.1).

In opposition, supporters of “humanitarian exceptionalism” argue that expanding the scope of humanitarian action will lead to a breach of the principles of independence and neutrality (Macrae, 2000, p. 94-95-96). Furthermore, Bennet and Foley describe that this group of humanitarian’s judges that the close relation of humanitarian efforts to political, security, state-building, and development objectives implies the high risk of humanitarian activities’ submission to security and political objectives. Hence, they believe that it is necessary to maintain humanitarian action separate and distinct from other forms of aid to ensure that humanitarian priorities are upheld (Bennet and Foley, 2016, p. 49). Nevertheless, even those organisations that most strongly support the “exceptionalism” of the humanitarian sector, such as MSF and ICRC, acknowledge that, depending on the conflict settings, the degree of adhesion to the principles can vary (Labbé, 2015; Magones et al., 2011, as cited in Bennet and Foley, 2016, p. 50).

Finally, Bennet and Foley argue that even though humanitarian principles are still in use as quintessential elements of humanitarian action, in reality, humanitarian organizations struggle to follow them, partly due to the changing of crisis, and partly due to the change of the modus operandi of many organisations (2016, p. 50). As previously described in section 1.1, recent developments indicate that there is a strong push for the implementation of an inclusive approach that seeks greater adherence among sectors (Medinilla, 2016, p.5). Yet, the humanitarian sector remains deeply divided between exceptionalism and inclusivity.

(26)

25

2.2.2. Rehabilitation aid

Within the LRRD discourse, "rehabilitation" has been seen as a phase whose function goes beyond the sole physical and economic reparation of the damage brought by crises. Instead, it provides an opportunity to improve the status quo present before the crisis (Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell, 1994, p.8). Initially, rehabilitation was thought of as a "bridge" between relief and development. The EC defines it as "an overall, dynamic and intermediate strategy of institutional reform and reinforcement, of reconstruction and improvement of infrastructure and services, supporting the initiatives and actions of the population concerned, in the political-economic and social domain, and aimed towards the resumption of sustainable development" (EC,1996, p.7). Mosel and Lavine (2014) argue that those who support a linear approach to aid (see section 2.3.1), see the rehabilitation phase as not just another phase of passage between the humanitarian and the development phases, but as an approach with its specific and different content and goal than either of the two other phases, having as primary focus the reconstruction of better structures and institutions (p.6). On the same line, Dieci (2006) underlines the strategic potential of the rehabilitation phase. Belonging neither to relief nor to development aid, it is conceived as a "neutral" space where the expertise of a multitude of actors with different mandates is required. Development aid in particular could thus profit from such a fluid and adaptable moment and capitalize on this special "window of opportunity" (p.5). However, as Mosel and Lavine (2014) stress when looking at protracted crises, this interpretation becomes problematic, since such flexible moments are more frequent following the succession of frequent and recurrent crisis. This idea is characteristic of a contiguum approach (see section 2.3.2.) Thus, rehabilitation has to be understood neither as a bridge nor a separate phase, but rather as a sub-phase of a broader developmental one (p.6).

2.2.3. Development cooperation

It is not possible to identify a universally agreed-upon definition of "development". Abuiyada (2018) reports that it is generally thought of as the alteration of power structures with the aim of "building active and sustainable communities based on social justice and mutual respect" (Abuiyada, 2018, p.115). In general terms, development traditionally consists of long- term projects aimed at improving “economic and social conditions of society outside times of crisis” (Steets, 2011, p.10). As described by Steets

(27)

26 (2011), nowadays development aid has as target group “society as a whole” and is strongly involved with “central and local governments” of developing countries (Steets, 2011, p. 10), however, it also promotes investment in human capital, to help people “to sustain themselves and contribute to individual and national warfare” (Schmitz, 2019, p.1052).

In 2005, in Paris, under the lead of the OECD, over 100 developed and developing countries, signed the Paris Declaration, with the objective of improving effectiveness and efficiency of aid and its impact on development. The declaration laid out five guiding principles, which are substantially different from the humanitarian principles discussed above. These are ownership, alignment, harmonization, management of results, and mutual accountability (OECD, 2015, para.1). The Paris declaration represents an official global commitment of both donor and recipient countries to work together to make aid more effective.

Firstly, the principle of ownership describes how developing countries are in charge of defining their development strategies and of improving their institutions. Secondly, alignment means that donor countries and organisations will operate within those strategies and institutions. Thirdly, the principle of harmonization mandates that donors and developing countries share information, coordinate, and cooperate with the aim of avoiding duplication. Then, managing for results requires all stakeholders to measure their activities through a results-based system. And finally, the principle of mutual accountability requires both donors and developing countries to be accountable for results (OECD, 2015, para.4).

Following Harmer (2012), in the 1950s and 1960s, development cooperation was designed to “reinforce governments of newly independent states” (p.8). However, this system was challenged when it appeared that local governments themselves were hindering the development process. Starting from the 1980s the international aid community acknowledged that, especially in cases of conflict-affected states, rather than working with the government it was necessary to work around it. Consequently, humanitarian aid, following its mandate and principles, intervened in fragile contexts, while the development sector began to engage only with governments that were “perceived as legitimate and effective”(Harmer, 2012, p.8) thus excluding fragile contexts.

(28)

27 Harmer and Macrae (2004) describe this new modality of engagement of development aid. Donor countries and organizations designed a system to select which countries affected by protracted crises were to receive development aid. This system is based on two main premises. The first one is that the instruments used by the development actors would promote a political transformation. This idea is rooted in the belief that “positive political change, characterised by respect for human rights, good governance and economic liberalization, will promote development” (p.6). Secondly, the emphasis is not placed on the quick resumption of the development process. Rather, the attention lies in designing developmental interventions that are sustainable over a long period of time (p.6).

On the basis of these two prerequisites, a set of criteria for country selection was created: such as progress on good governance, the possession of liberal economic market policies, health, and education (p.6). When countries score a high number on these criteria it means that the risk of losing development investments in those countries is low. Following this system, “poor performing” countries do not qualify for development aid. This system is highly problematic for countries affected by protracted crises since most of them are characterized by the presence of low-quality state and governmental institutions, if not at all absent (Harmer and Macrae, 2004, p.6).

As a result, Macrae (2012) argues that development assistance was absent in countries affected by protracted crises and was not directed at the most vulnerable world’s populations (p.8). In fact, since countries that are affected by protracted crises, natural and manmade, are unable to fulfil the criteria required by the funding development system, they do not receive developmental aid. Therefore, development programmes are absent from contexts of protracted crises, and humanitarian organizations are left alone to address all needs of affected people, including long-term ones. Many authors believe that the absence of this phenomenon is one of the main causes for the slow and scarce results of the LRRD approach in the reduction of the divided across sectors(Mosel and Lavine, 2014, p.4; Harmer and Macrae, 2014, p.5-6) since this approach is based on the simultaneous and complementary work of both sectors from the beginning of operations.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015) adopted by all United Nations Member States sets as objectives, among others, to end poverty and hunger by 2030. Moreover, Member States commit to “reach first those who are furthest behind” (UN, 2016, para. 1). Therefore, the new developments show the

(29)

28 acknowledgment and commitment of the international donor community to intervene in the most fragile and vulnerable world’s countries. Nevertheless, the OECD report on States Fragility 2018 (2019), highlights that only “2% of total gross official development assistance (ODA) went to conflict prevention and associated activities” (p.3). The report warns development actors to “better grasp the unique challenges of development in fragile contexts in the ambitions of the Sustainable Development Goals are to be met” (p.3).

The literature review showed that while rehabilitation aid is rather unclear since authors are in disagreement over its nature, the other two forms of aid are clearly structured. The detailed presentation of humanitarian, relief, and development sectors shows the profound differences in principles and modus operandi between humanitarian and development aid. The humanitarian sector is deeply involved in the humanitarian-development nexus debate, and humanitarians are divided over the extent to which the two sectors should cooperate. In opposition, the development sector not only has not taken part in the nexus debate but also is mostly absent from contexts of protracted crisis.

After having looked at the most critical aspects of humanitarian and development sectors in relation to the LRRD approach, the thesis will move on to present a literature review of the development of the LRRD approach.

2.3. History of LRRD: The humanitarian-development nexus debate

The previous section displayed a detailed literature review of the concept of LRRD, as well as of the main characteristics of the three types of aid that constitute this concept. In light of the previous review, the present section analyses the evolution of the concept of LRRD and the use of terminology. Through an in-depth study of the most referenced sources on the history of LRRD, the research will focus on LRRD’s milestones and pitfalls. In the literature, the evolution of the LRRD concept is divided into two phases, which are defined as two generations of debate. The first is characterised by the key concept of the relief-development continuum, while the second generation by the concept of contiguum. By studying the history of LRRD the thesis will identify the main characteristics, propositions, and problematic aspects of this approach. Furthermore, the thesis will use these elements as reference to study the case of the EC policies on LRRD and determine to which extent they reflect the LRRD approach debate.

Finally, it is necessary to clarify that in the literature, most of the authors refer to the concepts of “the history of the LRRD approach” and to that of “the evolution of the

(30)

29 humanitarian-development nexus debate” as synonyms. The same use is going to be made in the present thesis.

2.3.1. First generation of the debate: Relief-development continuum

As Christoplos (2006, p.26) explains, even though the LRRD approach was first conceptualized in 1996, the debate around the concept of LRRD originates almost a decade earlier, in the 1980s, as a response to the food crisis in Africa. The exacerbation of the humanitarian crisis in this geographic area, caused by the continued protracted crises together with the increasing number of conflicts was the trigger that initiated a debate on how humanitarian and development sectors and approaches could be better linked. This first generation of the debate was mostly focused on risk reduction initiatives in the context of natural disasters (Christoplos, 2006, p.26). The conviction that the clear-cut division between development and relief world present until that moment had become unsustainable took hold (Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell, 1994, p.3). Initially, the theoretical debate was based on the “continuum” model or “relief-development continuum” (Hinds, 2015, p.3). Following this approach, aid is conceived as a linear process where each type of assistance comes into action in a sequential linear fashion: first relief, then rehabilitation, and finally development. The focus is placed on exit strategies to ease the passage of aid from one typology to another (Mosel and Lavine, 2014, p.3).

This idea of linear consequentiality of aid derived from how development and crises were thought of during the 1990s. As Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell (1994) describe, in this time, development was seen as an almost natural and progressive process led by governments that was disrupted by events out of the ordinary. Thus, crises were phenomena that thwarted the efforts of development and required the use of many resources for a long time (p.1). The idea of crisis as an exception was not accepted by everyone, as some considered the emergencies as the norm (Buchanan- Smith and Maxwell, 1994, p.3)

At the same time, the continuum model is based on the notion that: “better development can reduce the need for emergency relief; better relief can contribute to development, and better rehabilitation can ease the transition between the two” (Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell, 1994, p.2). Following this rationale, on the one hand, development had to aim to reduce communities’ vulnerabilities to shocks caused by

(31)

30 natural disasters. On the other hand, relief should not have the sole function of reducing the damages of crises, but should also be seen as a starting point for recovery and the creation of more profitable and resilient livelihoods (Harmer and Macrae, 2004, p.2). Emphasis was placed on making relief more developmental and sustainable (Harmer and Macrae, 2004, p.3).

Despite the evolution of the debate at a theoretical level, little and non-substantial changes were made at the level of programming and funding implementation, resulting in scarce progress in the incorporation of the LRRD approach in both sectors (Mosel and Lavine, 2014, p.4).

2.3.2. Second generation of the debate: From continuum to contiguum

As discussed in the previous section, this first conceptualization of LRRD as a linear “continuum” model was criticized by many authors and practitioners, which was replaced by the “contiguum” model. As Koddenbrock argues, for such linear model to be successful many presuppositions needed to be present: a unique focus on natural disasters, the stability of the local government, and the possibility to dispose of many resources. In such a setting, relief and rehabilitation assistance were provided as temporary measures until the disaster situation would have returned under control and the local government would have been able to take over the situation without the need for external support (Koddenbrock, 2009, p.121; Macrae, 2012, p.8). Hence, in this context, different types of aid are delivered at different times, in a sequential/timely order: first relief (as a temporary palliative), then rehabilitation (that consisted in the recovery of the “normal” service system), and then development (that was seen as constantly present and in steady progress). However, as many authors have argued, the presupposition above mentioned do not mirror the reality of humanitarian crises. Thus, the continuum model neither realistically represents the complexity of the reality of crises nor proposes an adequate aid services’ answer (Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell, 1994, p.3; Longhurst, 1994).

These considerations are especially relevant for contexts of protracted crises and post-conflict situations where linear transitions are not present, conflicts are recurrent, and the addition of natural disasters further jeopardize stability and welfare. Moreover, in contexts of protracted crises, governments are unlikely to have the means or the will to address the consequences of humanitarian crises (Koddenbrock, 2009, p.122).

(32)

31 Thus, the continuum model was substituted by a contiguum one. This latter started from the notion that crises are not unpredictable events but rather “they are symptomatic of poverty and political crisis” (Harmer, 2012, p.8), which implies that affected people have many levels of needs at the same time. Therefore, to answer appropriately to such situations, relief aid, rehabilitation, and development instruments must be applied simultaneously, in an interlinked, holistic, and complementary fashion (EC, 2010, P.16). Often the term continuum was replaced by the concept of “development relief”. This latter term was created by the Red Cross in the mid-1990s and was further developed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) (Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri, 2005). In “development relief”, different types of aid are seen as interacting in a “complex ongoing relationship” (Hinds, 2015, p.3), rather than in an over-simplistic linear chronological fashion. Among other challenges, short-term disaster interventions (Otto and Weingartner, 2013, p. 27) and the absence of development assistance in context of protracted crises (Mosel and Lavine, 2014, p.3), were identified as two structural flaws of the linear model. On the one hand, short-term disaster interventions presupposed that crises were exceptional events, which has been demonstrated not to be an accurate representation of the reality of protracted crises. On the other, this model was based on the constant and progressive presence of development. However, development cooperation was almost completely absent in these contexts. Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri (2005) describe the new approach as being concerned with long term solutions while addressing acute and immediate needs, by making survivors' and local institutions' capacities more resilient (Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri, 2005, p.6).

Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri (2005) argue that alongside the change to a holistic understanding of reality and aid’s answers, the second generation debate is thus characterized by a shift in focus: from being concerned with how to improve aid management, attention shifted towards understanding the political reasons behind aid policy (Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri, 2005, p.6-7). Focus is placed on the concepts “of “collaboration” (among humanitarian and development actors and with local actors) and “coherence” (between relief and development action)” (Schmitz, 2019, p.1054). Furthermore, the concept of security of donor states becomes central in the design of external aid delivery of donor countries.

Although some authors support that the “continuum” model was adapted to the changing context of humanitarian crises, many others believe that such modification was

HUMANITARIAN-DEVELOPMENT NEXUS: