Image by UN Women/Ryan Brown
  • Report

Supporting longer term development in crises at the nexus: Lessons from Cameroon: Chapter 1

Introduction

Downloads
Chapter 1 of 9
Contents

Strengthening joined-up humanitarian, development and peace responses requires a shift towards “development where possible and humanitarian only when necessary”, as recognised by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (see Box 1 for key terms used in this report). Humanitarian and development actors have a joint responsibility for preventing, managing and recovering from crises. However, they approach crises with different priorities, objectives, policies and programmatic methods. The result is not only a disconnect in their understanding but also gaps in response in crisis contexts. Previous research by Development Initiatives and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)[1] identified the need for further research on the current and potential role of development finance and institutions in complementing humanitarian action to provide more durable solutions for crisis-affected people. This is pertinent in responding to Covid-19, which involves needs for both immediate lifesaving assistance and longer term support for health systems, socioeconomic impacts and peacebuilding.[2]

This country report on Cameroon contributes to a multi-country study[3] focusing on the role of development actors in addressing people’s longer term needs, risks and vulnerabilities, and supporting the operationalisation of the humanitarian–development–peace (HDP) nexus.

Cameroon has been selected as a focus country and its experience can inform global policy and practice for several reasons. Firstly, Cameroon has moved from a position of stability to three concurrent crises in the last five years, raising questions about how development actors have adapted to this shifting context. Secondly, Cameroon was a case country for the IASC’s study on financing the nexus,[4] presenting opportunities to build on findings from this initial research. Thirdly, Cameroon is as a pilot country for the UN Joint Steering Committee to Advance Humanitarian and Development Collaboration and the Humanitarian Development Peace Initiative (HDPI), a joint initiative of the UN and World Bank that emerged from a commitment made at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. Further country studies are underway in Somalia and Bangladesh, which will conclude in a synthesis report setting out key findings and lessons across country studies and recommendations for development actors engaging in crisis contexts.

As part of Development Initiatives’ broader programme of work on the nexus, research undertaken in 2019 on the approach of donors identified a gap in evidence on the ways in which development actors are already and can better address the longer term development needs of vulnerable populations and structural causes of crisis.[5] This evidence gap was corroborated in the research of others, including the IASC.[6] This report aims to improve understanding of how development assistance currently targets crisis-affected populations and addresses the structural causes of crisis within Cameroon. It explores how development actors support the delivery of joined-up responses in Cameroon by working alongside and in collaboration with humanitarian and peace actors at the strategic, practical and institutional levels. It identifies examples of good practice, learning and recommendations for how development assistance can better prevent and respond to crisis situations and support the delivery of the HDP nexus agenda, both within Cameroon and more broadly.

The research findings are based on a desk review of relevant documentation, key informant interviews (KIIs) with approximately 50 development actors engaging in Cameroon and based at local, national and international (HQ) levels (Appendix 1), and webinars to validate recommendation and deepen analysis.[7]

Box 1

Definitions of key terms

Nexus: This paper uses ‘nexus’ or ‘triple nexus’ as shorthand terms for the connections between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding approaches. We align with the OECD DAC definition:

‘Nexus approach’ refers to the aim of strengthening collaboration, coherence and complementarity. The approach seeks to capitalize on the comparative advantages of each pillar – to the extent of their relevance in the specific context – in order to reduce overall vulnerability and the number of unmet needs, strengthen risk management capacities and address root causes of conflict.[8]

Achieving collaboration, coherence and complementarity means quite different things to different actors. We understand the three ambitions to sit on a spectrum from complementarity to coherence, with complementarity the minimum requirement for approaching the nexus. At the higher end of the spectrum, the nexus can fundamentally challenge existing divisions between humanitarian, development and peace systems, encouraging stronger coherence and working towards shared outcomes. The concept of shared or collective outcomes was conceived by the UN in preparation for and follow-up to the World Humanitarian Summit and recently adopted in the UN-IASC Light Guidance on Collective Outcomes.[9] We also recognise that there are three dual nexuses within the triple nexus – the well-established humanitarian–development, the development–peace and humanitarian–peace nexuses.

This report focuses explicitly on the role of development actors, covering the development–peace and development–humanitarian nexuses. Specifically, this means understanding how development actors are working collaboratively, coherently and complementarily with humanitarian and peace actors at the strategic, practical and institutional levels to address the needs of vulnerable crisis-affected populations. This will translate into actions under a range of existing concepts including resilience, recovery, inclusion and peacebuilding, and embeding risk, among others.

Resilience: We align with the OECD DAC definition:

The ability of households, communities, and nations to absorb and recover from shocks, whilst positively adapting and transforming their structures and means for living in the face of long-term stresses, change and uncertainty. Resilience is about addressing the root causes of crises whilst strengthening the capacities and resources of a system in order to cope with risks, stresses and shocks.[10]

Resilience is understood as cross-cutting to humanitarian, development and peacebuilding activities.

Early recovery: An approach that addresses recovery needs arising during the humanitarian phase of an emergency, using humanitarian mechanisms that align with development principles. The multidimensional process of recovery begins in the early days of a humanitarian response.

Recovery: This is the restoration, and improvement where appropriate, of facilities, livelihoods and living conditions of disaster-affected communities, including efforts to reduce disaster risk factors, largely through development assistance.[11]

Development: This report focuses explicitly on the role of development actors and actions in crisis contexts. Here, we understand ‘development’ as long-term support to developing countries to deliver sustainable solutions for addressing poverty, supporting livelihoods and providing basic services, with a particular focus on those in greatest need and furthest behind. We understand development actors to include donors, NGOs, UN agencies, multilateral development banks, local and national authorities, and private sector and community-based organisations.

Peace: There are many ways to understand conflict and peace, and clear overlaps with development and resilience. In this report, where there is not yet consensus on what is covered in the ‘peace’ aspect of the triple nexus, we understand it to include conflict prevention, conflict sensitivity (to ensure programming avoids harm and where possible builds peace), peacebuilding and mediation efforts at local, national and regional levels. To cover all possible ‘peace-related’ activities in the research, we have included a focus on stabilisation and efforts to tackle violent extremism though recognise the contentions between political priorities on security and stability and safeguarding humanitarian principles.

Humanitarian action: Humanitarian action is intended to:

…save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and after man-made crises and disasters caused by natural hazards, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for when such situations occur.[12]

Furthermore, humanitarian action should be governed by the key humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence.

Notes

  • 7

    A number of key donors to the context (including African Development Bank, Korea, Japan and the Global Fund) did not respond to requests for interviews and their perspectives are therefore not included.

    Return to source text