The transition from development and disaster risk reduction to humanitarian relief: the case of Yemen during high‐intensity conflict

Abstract

Discussions on how humanitarian aid and disaster response can better link with development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have existed for decades. However, the reverse transition, from development to relief, is still poorly understood. Using the case of Yemen, this study analyses whether and how development and DRR activities adapted to the emerging humanitarian crisis when conflict in the country escalated. The study focuses on governance strategies, actors, challenges, and opportunities in the nexus between development, disaster, and humanitarian responses. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with aid and societal actors were conducted remotely and in Jordan. The findings show gaps in knowledge and coordination in the transition from development and DRR to relief, but also reveal spaces and opportunities to advance towards a better integration of action before, during, and after a crisis. This article contributes to the literature on this nexus and critically argues for the need for a more integrated approach to conflicts and disasters.

Connecting Disasters and Climate Change to the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus

“…Although the HDP nexus has reignited the support for, and interest in improving coordination, collaboration, and coherence across aid sectors, it is not a new idea. It builds on past attempts that primarily focused on strengthening the link between humanitarian and development interventions (i.e., the HD or double nexus), such as Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development from the 1980s (European Parliament, 2012; Mena & Hilhorst, 2021), which lacked the momentum and incentives to achieve systematic and long-term change (Thomas & VOICE, 2019). One of its main weaknesses was that it framed aid and recovery as a continuum—that one is able to go from humanitarian crisis/emergency relief to development (Harmer & Macrae, 2004; Mena & Hilhorst, 2021).…”

“…It builds on past attempts that primarily focused on strengthening the link between humanitarian and development interventions (i.e., the HD or double nexus), such as Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development from the 1980s (European Parliament, 2012; Mena & Hilhorst, 2021), which lacked the momentum and incentives to achieve systematic and long-term change (Thomas & VOICE, 2019). One of its main weaknesses was that it framed aid and recovery as a continuum—that one is able to go from humanitarian crisis/emergency relief to development (Harmer & Macrae, 2004; Mena & Hilhorst, 2021). It thus, to a large extent, overlooked the complementarity of different approaches and types of aid (European Parliament, 2012), including humanitarian aid to preserve development gains during the crisis, which are a necessity in the majority of contexts that experience long-term and recurrent violent conflicts (CIC, 2019).…”

“…Anticipatory action on disasters and CC that seek to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts must focus on integrally addressing these underlying socially created vulnerabilities rather than targeting potential hazards or hazard influencers, such as CC. These same vulnerabilities tend to determine humanitarian needs, winners and losers in development, and the use of violence to address social conflicts, reinforcing the need to address them in integrated ways rather than creating new foci (Mena & Hilhorst, 2021; Peters, 2022). A strategic integration of CC across the SDGs and across the HDP nexus would better address root causes of vulnerability, including all forms of violent conflict.…”

“…Although the idea of linking development and humanitarianism can be traced back more than three decades, as detailed by European Parliament (2012) and Rama (2017), the triple or humanitarian, development and peace/peacebuilding (HDP) nexus came to the fore during the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) of 2016 (Brown & Mena, 2021; Mena & Hilhorst, 2021). More recently, some have argued for the importance of considering CC, most notably CC caused by human activities, alongside the triple nexus given the compound, large, and long-term effects that human-caused CC is expected to bring (OXFAM, 2019).…”

Ethical considerations of disaster research in conflict-affected areas

“…In our experience, it is important to be open about these situations, deliberating with peers before making decisions that veer away from the ethical optimum, and always enabling the evaluation of decisions by narrating them in detail in research reports. To illustrate this point, we borrow here (in an edited form) some considerations from the ethics section of the dissertation of author 1 of this article, particularly about how he dealt with informed consent and confidentiality during his research in Afghanistan and South Sudan (see Mena, 2020a).…”