Humanitarian aid and development  »  Foundations  »

Development cooperation or humanitarian action? Differences, nexus and tensions

  • Page updated onApril 8, 2026
Humanitarian action or development cooperation?
Text and photo: Bruno Abarca

Development cooperation and humanitarian action are the two main pillars of international cooperation. In many cases they share characteristics such as actors, funding channels and project-based operations. However, they also have different objectives, time frames, actions and principles. In any case, they are deeply interrelated, especially in contexts where humanitarian crises become chronic. Attempts to improve this relationship and coordination between the two fields have resulted in an ambitious (and debated) conceptual framework: the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

Differences and relationship between development cooperation and humanitarian action

Two different approaches, under the same umbrella: international cooperation

International cooperation is a global framework for collaboration. It involves various actors in order to address problems of a humanitarian, social, economic or technical nature. Under this umbrella, there are two fundamental operational pillars: development cooperation and humanitarian action.

These two areas of international cooperation, one more humanitarian and the other focused on development, actually have many similarities from a technical perspective. For example, both operate under a project logic and its results-based management around food security, basic services such as water, health and education, or the fight against hunger, for example. These projects, moreover, follow a similar analytical and methodological process in both sectors, from context and needs analysis to implementation of actions and their monitoring and evaluation.

From a more systemic perspective, development cooperation and humanitarian action also share, at least in part, actors, mechanisms and funding. In fact, most of the funds for both areas are grouped under the concept of Official Development Assistance (ODA). Moreover, there are also common ethical standards and principles such as gender equality, the rights-based approach, localization or accountability to communities (and not only to donors).

However, there are also differences between the two sectors, both in many aspects related to the practical application of all of the above and in deeper issues.

Main differences between development cooperation and humanitarian action

Humanitarian action and development cooperation, despite their similarities, also have important differences in their time frame, objectives and principles. This obviously determines differences between project actions and between actors, who tend to be more aligned with one or the other field.

First, while humanitarian action seeks to alleviate suffering in humanitarian emergencies, from the ethical and ideological basis of humanitarianism, development cooperation pursues more transformative and sustainable goals, seeking to address the root causes of crises. To this end, it seeks to strengthen public institutions and create opportunities for people to lift themselves out of poverty and improve their living conditions, generally with a more ambitious vision of community participation and empowerment.

Secondly, and precisely for this reason, humanitarian actions in emergencies are usually faster and more immediate. The relief of suffering and the protection of the lives of affected people cannot wait for years. In contrast, the changes that development cooperation seeks to bring about cannot be achieved in a few months. Some development objectives are systemic and far-reaching and may take many years.

Thirdly, due to the type of context in which they intervene and the actors with whom they work, there are important differences in the principles that guide both sectors. Thus, humanitarian action responds to crises related to conflicts, displacement and even the collapse of public authorities. As such, its humanitarian principles focus on ethical imperatives and on trying to get access to affected people. In contrast, the principles of development cooperation focus more on its effectiveness:

  • National ownership. Developing countries must lead their own development priorities.
  • Focus on results. Investments should seek measurable and sustainable changes for poverty eradication, inequality reduction or sustainable development.
  • Inclusive partnerships. Relationships among stakeholders should be collaborative and based on mutual trust and respect.
  • Transparency and accountability: Information should be shared openly, under a framework of mutual and shared accountability. 

The differences between development and humanitarian action are sometimes blurred or closely related.

Despite these differences, conflicts are increasingly prolonged, and the lines separating development cooperation from humanitarian action often blur. When humanitarian crises last for years, it makes no sense to continue offering affected people the same assistance as in the most acute phase of the emergency. In those cases, the humanitarian response adapts to forms and mechanisms that have much in common with development cooperation.

On the other hand, humanitarian crises often have an enormous negative impact on the development of the affected countries and communities. If international cooperation invests in development, as well as in humanitarian aid, it can be a great help in overcoming the acute emergency, accelerating recovery and reversing the situation.

For these and other reasons, for years there have been calls for better connection and coordination between humanitarian action and development cooperation. This seeks to address the vulnerability faced by people before, during and after a humanitarian crisis. This has been pursued since the 1990s through different approaches, such as the relief-recovery-development continuum, the resilience agenda, disaster risk reduction and conflict sensitivity. The latest variant of these efforts goes beyond a technical transition from one phase to another and proposes a systemic change: the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

The humanitarian-development-peace Nexus: from theory to practice

The Nexus approach proposes a simultaneous integration of its three elements

Although we cannot predict the future, we know that humanitarian crises are becoming more recurrent, that conflicts are becoming more complex and protracted and that these emergencies are exacerbated by environmental degradation and climate change. Therefore, it is not enough to understand the relationship between humanitarian action, development and peace only sequentially.

What the Nexus suggests is that all three elements must be implemented at the same time. We cannot wait until the humanitarian emergency is over to start thinking about long-term development because if the structural problems that led to the conflict are not solved, the conflict will continue. Likewise, it makes no sense to work on development cooperation without anticipating and preparing for an eventual humanitarian response or without trying to maintain peace.

Effectively addressing this requires changes in the way humanitarian and cooperation actors work. The humanitarian-development-peace nexus requires collaboration between actors who until now worked separately and important structural changes in how international cooperation is coordinated, financed and produced.

The new approach is intended to result in a shift in focus from "offering help" to "ending need".

Practical recommendations for applying the Nexus

With the World Humanitarian Summit and Grand Bargain 2016, the link between development, humanitarian and peacekeeping or peacebuilding received a strong push from numerous actors. Thus, the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus was not only raised as a theoretical framework, but also prioritized the development of tools to implement it.

In 2018, the Nexus ended up materializing beyond a conceptual issue into practical guidelines for its application and operationalization by donors. That year, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which brings together the more than 30 major donor countries, published an agreement for the operationalization of the Nexus with eleven recommendations for better aid coordination, programming, and financing (as well as key actions for each recommendation):

  1. Analyze the underlying causes and drivers that contribute to conflicts.
  2. Provide appropriate resources for leadership for effective coordination among humanitarian, development and peace actors.
  3. Use advocacy and other tools to prevent crises, resolve conflicts and build peace.
  4. Prioritize prevention, mediation and peace building, investing in development whenever possible.
  5. Put people at the center, avoiding exclusion and promoting gender equality.
  6. Ensure conflict sensitivity of actions, so that they do not cause unintended harm and negative consequences.
  7. Adapt development, peace and humanitarian programs to effectively address the risks present in crisis and conflict contexts.
  8. Strengthen the capacities of national and local stakeholders.
  9. Invest in learning and evidence generation.
  10. Develop funding strategies to ensure effective resource allocation.
  11. Use multi-year, flexible and predictable financing whenever possible.

These recommendations not only have value in isolation, but connect the need to address the needs of the affected population from peace, development and humanitarian action, with other elements that have been identified as key to humanitarian reform. Thus the Nexus is necessarily connected to localization, community participation and the need for better quality humanitarian financing.

Many organizations have aligned with the Nexus, at least in theory

Since its publication, donors and humanitarian actors have adhered to these recommendations, including NGOs and UN agencies. For example, the IASC adopted the Nexus as a strategic priority from 2018 to 2020. All of this has resulted in a mountain of position papers, guides, guidance documents and even recognized frameworks for collaboration among actors, such as the Global Compact on Refugees, published in 2018 by the United Nations. This level of normative progress is impressive, given the complexity of the issue and the sheer diversity of actors involved.

Many actors have also been able to translate these recommendations into their own way of working. Some of them have reorganized their internal management structures to better integrate the different approaches or have updated their programs and strategies with this vision in mind. Others have prioritized preparedness actions for potential humanitarian emergencies, or have developed tools to improve their conflict sensitivity. Major donors such as the World Bank have also been open to intervening in protracted humanitarian emergencies and countries in conflict.

🧠 Let's pause and reflect

Under what conditions can the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus compromise the humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence, and how should an organization manage that tension?

  • 1 Think and write your answer.
  • 2 Click on «Copy and open».
  • 3 Paste to receive feedback.

📚 This is the NotebookLM for this topic. It uses only carefully selected references. | What is NotebookLM?

Tensions in the operationalization of the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

The nexus has generated a fairly broad consensus, at least in theory. In practice, however, tensions arise when applying an idea that is not as simple as it seems at first glance. 

Lack of understanding for the practical application of the Nexus

There are still important gaps in the understanding and collaboration between actors, in the participation of civil society in processes and discussions, or in the effective integration of peace into the rest. Likewise, there is still a need for greater understanding of how to deal with the potential problems that may result from the Nexus for humanitarian action. For all these reasons, the humanitarian-development-peace Nexus is sometimes still seen as a conceptual rather than a practical proposal.

There are fears about the possible negative impact of the Nexus on humanitarian action

Some people have expressed concern that humanitarian action would be diluted into a development and resilience agenda, or that humanitarian principles could be diluted.

On the one hand, if humanitarian actors are perceived in some contexts as collaborators in development actions or peace operations, their work can be effectively compromised. Moreover, peace operations are usually perceived as being directly involved in conflict dynamics, which may clash with principles such as neutrality. On the other hand, development projects are often led by public authorities, which may clash with the principle of independence. If the public and the actors with whom humanitarian organizations must sometimes negotiate access to affected populations perceive a lack of independence or neutrality in them, negotiations may be undermined.

In addition, the Nexus may worsen the funding problems. Basically, if financial resources for international cooperation do not increase, with the same resources with which previously only humanitarian action was done (for example) now peacekeeping and development must also be done. As a result, the protection of the most vulnerable may be compromised.

The Nexus has a confusing rhetoric that makes it difficult to be accepted

Many people have criticized the vagueness - at least initially - of the approach, the confusing rhetoric, and the difficulty in translating the idea into a concrete practical application. The jokes about how difficult it is to understand the Nexus have been recurrent and reflect the fact that, in many environments, the proposal has been slow to catch on or has failed to do so.

There are also voices that simply ask that this proposal be supported by evidence of effectiveness, and not just apparent good ideas.

It is not easy to integrate the third element of the Nexus: peace.

From the beginning there were concerns about the possible link with military actions in peace processes, as a result of the indefinition of the proposal in the way of understanding peace. There have been tensions between humanitarian action and the Nexus, for example in Mali, where the military forces of the UN peacekeeping mission MINUSMA offered humanitarian projects and services, politicizing and jeopardizing the perceived neutrality of humanitarian actors.

It has been necessary to clarify, first, that "peace" in the Nexus refers to peacebuilding and not to military peace actions. It has also been explained that the most important thing about the integration of peace in the Nexus is possibly the conflict sensitivity of humanitarian actors. This requires to analyze and be cautious of the potential effect that humanitarian actions may have in a conflict zone..

Finally, it has been argued that, in highly politicized and militarized contexts, the Nexus may not be advisable or feasible.

Foundations of humanitarian action

NotebookLM

You can review my bibliographic references on the differences, nexus and tensions between development cooperation and humanitarian action with this NotebookLM, an artificial intelligence-based research assistant. Do you want to know more?

How to cite this page

Abarca, B. (April 8, 2026). Development cooperation or humanitarian action? Differences, nexus and tensions. Salud Everywhere. https://saludeverywhere.com/en/humanitarian-aid-and-international-development/development-cooperation-humanitarian-action-differences-nexus/

External links

Search
Scroll to Top