Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus Approaches in Conflict and Disaster Settings

Humanitarian-DevelopmentPeace Nexus Approaches in Conflict and Disaster Settings

UNDP application of the HDP nexus approach

What have we learnt in the process?

The humanitarian-development-peace nexus (HDP nexus, or Triple nexus) approach is a way of working with the populations affected by crisis to reduce their humanitarian needs by addressing key root causes and decreasing risks and vulnerabilities they face.

The HDP nexus strives to enhance the coordination, collaboration and coherence of humanitarian, development and peace actions, particularly in protracted crises and conflict settings. First conceptualized as the ‘New Way of Working’, it was proposed by the United Nations at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and further elaborated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2019.

1 2 3

UNDP has three roles within the HDP nexus:

Acting as a bridge between humanitarian, development and peace actors, to catalyze system-wide coherence on nexus approaches and engagement.

Contributing to ‘ending need’ by scaling up integrated development and peace programming.

Helping to develop financing strategies for nexus approaches, which bring together international, national, public and private finance.

Approaches to peace in the HDP nexus

Some notes, before we start.

Activities aimed at sustaining peace adopt different approaches, depending on the context and objectives.

'Big P' interventions directly target political solutions or securitized responses to violent conflict, often supported by a United Nations Security Council mandate. They may involve peace agreements.

‘Little p’ actions are focused on empowering individuals and transforming social dynamics, building the capacity for peace and for conflict prevention and management within institutions and broader society. This includes building trust and social cohesion.

‘Negative peace’ signifies the absence of direct violence, like a ceasefire.

‘Positive peace’ involves resolving conflicts constructively, restoring positive relationships, and establishing a social system that meets everyone's needs.

Although UNDP has a unique strategic advantage thanks to its mandate, its biggest achievements have come from collaborating with partners, including local actors, CSOs and the private sector.

UNDP can capitalize on several comparative advantages to strengthen the HDP nexus approach:

The UNDP mandate is broad and encompassing, allowing for a multidimensional approach to complex challenges in crisis and fragile countries.

The active involvement of UNDP in stabilization efforts strengthens its capacity to effectively coordinate and implement the HDP nexus approach.

UNDP has a long history of delivery in conflict-affected environments, creating trusted relationships with governments across programme countries.

UNDP was most successful when it worked to bolster partnerships with United Nations agencies and international financial institutions. UNDP played a key role in addressing protracted refugee crises and harmonizing collective assistance efforts by collaborating with UNHCR, the World Bank, and the European Union. With OHCHR, UNDP supported national human rights institutions and participated in the Universal Periodic Review.

Evaluative evidence highlights the need to work more with local actors, civil society organizations (CSOs) and the private sector.

The private sector has extensive presence in conflict zones. It can provide innovative solutions and create employment opportunities. While UNDP has successfully engaged the private sector in some crisis contexts (such as Sudan, Liberia and Democratic Republic of Congo), this approach has yet to be emphasized in regions facing both conflict and refugee challenges (e.g., Lake Chad basin).

UNDP and other agencies approach private sector engagement cautiously due to challenges in post-conflict reconstruction and local economic development, particularly regarding the need to safeguard local markets. With this in mind, UNDP should develop well-planned engagement strategies for long-term development outcomes.

01 Building on the UNDP mandate

and partnerships

Examples of UNDP partnerships and collaboration in the application of the HDP nexus approach.

In northeast NIGERIA, UNDP leveraged trusted relationships with federal and local governments and development partners to implement stabilization programmes. Using a nexus approach and building on the different mandates of agencies, UNDP promoted integrated interventions to stabilize communities affected by Boko Haram. These included livelihood support, security, basic services and local governance.

In TURKEY, LEBANON, JORDAN, IRAQ AND EGYPT, Syrian regional refugee response provided a framework for the UNDP and UNHCR to address humanitarian and development challenges simultaneously, employing a resilience approach.

In YEMEN, UNDP collaborated with FAO, WFP and ILO on joint programming to enhance rural resilience.

In Aweil State of SOUTH SUDAN, UNDP has been instrumental in shaping the strategy of the Partnership for Recovery and Resilience (PfRR), playing a crucial role as convenor and fund manager. The PfRR focused on supporting sustainable livelihoods, employment and inclusive economic growth to enhance resilience against shocks. Although the full impact of PfRR is yet to be realized, it serves as a framework to engage in initiatives that promote sustainable outcomes.

02 Adapting coordination frameworks

Adapting coordination frameworks through areabased planning, task teams and post-cluster mechanisms can enhance the implementation of HDP nexus approaches.

Global humanitarian coordination structures are increasingly embracing the nexus approach, with the establishment of the United Nations Joint Steering Committee (co-chaired by UNDP, PBSO/DPPA, DCO and OCHA) and the IASC Task Force 4 on Humanitarian Development Collaboration (co-chaired by UNDP and Oxfam).

At country level, adapting existing coordination structures to align with nexus objectives is challenging. Existing mechanisms, which rely heavily on humanitarian coordination structures, often do not involve all actors sufficiently.

No single coordination approach is universally effective across all contexts. While existing coordination structures are criticized for their inadequacy in bringing together all relevant actors, overly complex coordination models can impede comprehensive responses.

Positive adaptations to enhance nexus approaches included:

Moving away from traditional humanitarian clusters (dealing with emergency responses) towards new mechanisms labelled "post-cluster" coordination, involving more actors such as relevant authorities.

Task teams and task forces, such as the "nexus task forces“, which served as strategic platforms for humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors to collaborate towards common goals.

Geographically focused planning, known as 'area-based planning’. This approach addresses risks and needs comprehensively within specific communities or regions, aligning well with nexus principles.

02 Adapting coordination frameworks

Examples of positive adaptations of humanitarian coordination systems to enhance nexus approaches.

In LEBANON, ‘post-cluster’ coordination brought broader sectors together to facilitate collaboration not only among humanitarian and development actors, but also with relevant authorities.

In YEMEN, UNDP used the area-based approach to tailor interventions to respond to diverse local needs and contexts.

In KENYA, area-based planning facilitated multi-sectoral solutions for displaced populations and enhanced overall coordination efforts.

In SUDAN, UNDP used area-based planning to promote multisector, durable solutions for IDP returnees. The Development and Reconstruction Facility serves as an example of a “nexus task force.”

In SOMALIA, UNDP participated in the multistakeholder Water and Flood Task Force, which brought together humanitarian and development actors, including government officials and donors, to develop a flood response roadmap. Similar initiatives have been implemented in other contexts such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon.

03 Overcoming funding silos

By embedding livelihoods into humanitarian and peacebuilding programmes, and using more diverse sources to address root causes, funding silos can be overcome.

The adoption of HDP nexus approaches is often undermined by traditional funding patterns. Separate allocations, and donor risk aversion, have hindered funding for more innovative, systemic development approaches in volatile environments. Inflexible and shortterm funding has been a key barrier for UNDP to adopt the HDP nexus approach.

In some contexts, funding can vary quite significantly across the HDP, undermining the potential for complementarity. Typically, in sudden onset crises, most funding goes to humanitarian actors and development funding is stopped or significantly diminished. Funding for peacebuilding is insufficient, and has been declining as a proportion of official development assistance for the last decade. This imbalance underscores the overreliance on humanitarian actors to address systemic issues in fragile contexts.

In contexts like Palestine, the absence of donor coordination and consensus on the nexus approach has limited the incentives for humanitarian and development agencies to engage with each other to speed up the transition to development.

Despite these challenges, UNDP has managed to adopt a variety of mechanisms to overcome funding silos. These included:

• leveraging funds from global programmes and environmental vertical funds to address the root causes of problems in conflict settings and embed livelihoods and stabilization into humanitarian and peacebuilding programmes.

• diversifying funding sources from various donors (e.g., national government and the international community) for greater flexibility.

03 Overcoming funding

Examples of mechanisms to overcome funding silos

As UNDP did not have a poverty reduction programme in SUDAN, it embedded livelihoods, economic recovery and stabilization components into its humanitarian and peacebuilding programmes. It also revived local development institutions to provide basic service delivery. Through the success of such initiatives, UNDP was able to demonstrate to the donors the need to create an enabling environment for longer-term development linkages.

Furthermore, UNDP built a pipeline of innovative environment-related solutions to livelihoods and poverty reduction. A solar power initiative expanded agricultural livelihoods, enabling people in rainwaterdependent areas to get a second crop cycle and thus decreasing the risk of conflict.

In TURKEY, UNDP was able to receive funds from various donors thanks to its ability to work with the Government at different levels, its experience in subnational and municipal areas, its strong facilitation role, and its long partnership with key bilateral donors.

04 Localization lens in HDP nexus approach

Localization facilitates nexus approaches. Key factors for UNDP to foster localization have been the engagement of traditional and customary institutions, leveraging its on-the-ground presence, and elevating insights developed through bottom-up approaches.

In the context of the HDP nexus, localization can be understood as a process of recognizing, respecting and strengthening leadership by local and national authorities and supporting the capacity of local CSOs and communitybased organizations to better address the needs of affected populations.

Localization processes build trust, social cohesion and local ownership. They influence individual and collective behaviour to enable better conflict management.

UNDP was successful in ensuring a localization lens in its HDP nexus efforts, especially in instances where:

• it was able to engage traditional and customary institutions to ensure social cohesion among conflicting groups.

• It was also able to leverage its territorial reach and programme presence.

• It used a bottom-up approach to start nexus discussions and gather information.

04 Localization lens in HDP nexus approach

Examples of UNDP HDP nexus localization efforts leveraging local institutions, territorial presence and insights developed through bottom–up approaches.

In COLOMBIA. UNDP shared local offices with other United Nations agencies on the ground, which increased cooperation, joint initiatives and programme synergy. The impact on coordination among local stakeholders (mayors, CSOs, private sector and displaced populations) was evident.

In CAMEROON, UNDP engagement with authorities (governors, prefets, sous-prefets, mayors), and representatives of affected populations, informed the discussions of the HDP Nexus Taskforce.

In SUDAN, UNDP supported Community Management Committees to fill the vacuum left by state institutions in conflict-affected regions. These committees were recognized for their role in settling interpersonal and intergroup disputes through mediation and dialogue. The impact included the resumption of petty trade and transport services and reopening of schools.

05 Navigating the ‘Big P’ approach

The ‘Big P’ approach presents challenges for humanitarian actors who must uphold neutrality and impartiality principles. Conflict analysis and the identification of entry points to work on “Big P” peace helped UNDP to navigate this complexity.

In contexts where the nexus would bring humanitarian actors closer to State-based conflict parties, there can be tension between stronger humanitarian-peace links and humanitarian principles. This is a concern for UNDP and other United Nations agencies involved in the humanitarian response in these cases. Mali stands out as a clear example, where principled humanitarian action was in direct tension with nexus approaches. Despite challenges in engaging with the "Big P", there were some instances where UNDP, in close collaboration with other United Nations agencies, was able to find entry points related to peace in such processes.

Where UNDP has been able to scale its work to engage with the broader national peace architecture, it has demonstrated greater impact.

One of the most rapidly advancing approaches to incorporating peace considerations into the humanitarian efforts of United Nations agencies involves conducting conflict sensitivity analyses and considering conflict dynamics during programme planning and implementation.

To facilitate this, UNDP developed a Conflict and Development Analysis tool, which can be applied to inform early warning systems and ascertain the level of fragility of a country or region.

05 Navigating the ‘Big P’ approach

Examples of UNDP navigating the complexity of the ‘Big P’ approach by applying Conflict Development Analysis and identifying entry points.

In COLOMBIA, UNDP was a key player in the peace process in areas with FARC presence. UNDP enabled the engagement of 13,000 citizens in peace talks, and 60 victims in the peace negotiations, which was highly significant for the legitimacy and ownership of the Peace Accord.

In SOUTH SUDAN, UNDP resecured the eligibility of the United Nations country team for the Peacebuilding Fund. While activities under the fund are often regarded as ‘little p’, this achievement is poised to facilitate ‘Big P’ advances around constitutionbuilding and transitional justice.

In SOLOMON ISLANDS, Conflict Development Analysis was said to have provided the best quality contemporary context analysis.

06 Sustainable peace through ‘little p’ actions

‘Little p’ actions – such as peacebuilding and conflict prevention – offer more opportunities for sustainable peace across the HDP nexus than ‘big P’ actions, and significantly bolster societal stability.

Interventions under the 'little p' approach are pertinent not only in conflict scenarios but also in natural disaster settings, where substantial displacement may engender tensions among communities, often stemming from limited resource sharing.

The lack of services (such as water, food security and electricity) is one of the underlying causes of conflict. Therefore, successful efforts for reconstruction and restoration of basic services can strengthen community and national recovery.

UNDP post-conflict livelihood recovery projects have played a crucial role in stabilizing communities, reducing tensions, and establishing trust in governance structures. By repairing infrastructure, creating employment opportunities, and supporting the rule of law, UNDP has contributed to laying the groundwork for inclusive development and community resilience.

This was especially notable in dry and drought-prone areas, where UNDP efforts helped to increase the availability of water for drinking and irrigation and improve water conservation.

Support for the rule of law, human rights and the security sector is another major area of UNDP work which has a direct impact on conflict prevention.

06 Sustainable peace through ‘little p’ actions

Examples of successful UNDP ‘little p’ actions supporting the rule of law and addressing the root causes of tensions.

In IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN and SOMALIA, where low capacity was combined with active conflict and frequent political upheaval, UNDP built police infrastructure, supplied equipment, and provided training on management, human rights and genderrelated issues. Community police stations and family units contributed to enhanced trust and better services for women.

In HAITI, successive rule of law programmes built the capacity of the police. UNDP not only increased the number of police trained and infrastructure built, but also (and more importantly) empowered the Haiti National Police Inspection Unit with analytical and information technology capabilities. UNDP interventions directly contributed to stability, increased trust in the Government and improved access to justice.

In MYANMAR, ERITREA and YEMEN, UNDP interventions addressed access to water as one of the root causes of tensions between and among communities. These interventions contributed to increase the area under cultivation and allowed for diversification of crops and improved production, benefiting local populations.

UNDP/Tobin Jones

07 Supporting women’s role in conflict resolution

Empowering women to take a role in conflict resolution requires confronting restrictive social norms. UNDP achieved this when its interventions exposed patriarchal systems, challenged unconscious biases in both women and men, and involved men and boys in gender-mainstreaming and sensitization.

The involvement of women in conflict resolution is vital to achieve optimal outcomes. The inclusion of women as negotiators, mediators, signatories, and witnesses increases the probability of lasting agreements. Peace negotiations reached by parties including women result in greater participant satisfaction with the outcomes.

However, in many societies, social norms that prescribe roles for women and men reflect a deep patriarchy. For example, in Sudan, such norms were so pervasive that even women themselves considered conflict resolution a subject that should be handled only by males. On a practical level, trained women conflict mediators were prohibited from longer travel necessary for dealing with intercommunity conflict.

The UNDP approach to peacebuilding often does not address the drivers of gender inequality and oppressive norms. These are often not analyzed in relation to other social, economic and political inequalities. However, there are isolated examples of successful interventions addressing the root causes of women’s exclusion by creating explicit awareness about the limiting patriarchal structures.

Men and boys need to be included in gendermainstreaming and sensitization. The failure to target and sensitize men while supporting women to strengthen their decision-making power can potentially lead to increased gender-based violence at the household level.

07 Supporting women’s role in conflict resolution

Examples of successful UNDP interventions addressing the root causes of women’s exclusion from conflict resolution

At the border between KENYA and ETHIOPIA, a project promoting the inclusive representation of women, youth and vulnerable groups in peace structures and resource management addressed women’s public participation through community peace radio channels and social media.

In SOMALIA, a conflict resolution project was established on the premise that changing social norms requires bringing unconscious thoughts, bias and blind spots to the surface. The project trained women leaders, elders and religious leaders in nonviolent conflict resolution. As a result, women increasingly solved dispute cases themselves. Women leaders also observed increased recognition from elders and the wider community.

Evaluations of interventions in PAPUA NEW GUINEA and SUDAN explain that, as men decide how much decision-making power women are granted, they need to be included in gender mainstreaming and sensitization.

The Reflections series synthesizes lessons from past evaluations and evaluative studies to support organizational learning about what works and what doesn't in different development contexts. The aim of the series is to provide relevant, useful and accessible lessons to UNDP country offices and the wider community of development practitioners.

This paper draws on 65 evaluations and studies. The sources include countrylevel and thematic evaluations conducted by the UNDP Independent

Evaluation Office, quality-assured decentralized evaluations commissioned by UNDP country offices, and key evaluative studies published in academic journals and in grey literature.

Development of this paper leveraged a combination of AI-led searches in the UNDP AIDA (Artificial Intelligence for Development Analytics) tool and human-led analysis. This paper is based only on publicly available evaluative evidence and studies published between 2016 and 2024. It might not reflect recent developments that are not yet captured in evaluations.

INTRODUCTION

Merry Fitzpatrick, Kinsey Spears, Julia Ryan, Samuel Polzin, Greg Gottlieb, and Daniel Maxwell: Making the Nexus Real: Moving from theory to practice. Boston, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, 2021.

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9528

LESSON

1

Morinière, L and Morrison-Métois, S: ‘Working across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus: What can we learn from evaluations?’ ODI/ALNAP 2023, https://alnap.org/humanitarian-resources/publications-andmultimedia/working-across-the-humanitarian-developmentpeace-nexus-what-can-we-learn-from-evaluations/

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9528

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Support to Conflict-Affected Countries,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12441

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP

Support to the Syrian Refugee Crisis Response and Promoting and Integrated Resilience Approach,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9898

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP

Support to the Syrian Refugee Crisis Response and Promoting and Integrated Resilience Approach,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9898

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Nigeria,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12799

UNDP Nigeria, ‘Outcome Evaluation UNDP Nigeria Early Recovery Programme,’ UNDP 2022, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9409

UNDP South Sudan, ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the Country Programme Document (CPD),’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19372

LESSON 2

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Results Group 4:

‘Country Brief on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: Somalia,’ IASC 2021, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitariandevelopment-collaboration/mapping-good-practicesimplementation-humanitarian-development-peace-nexusapproaches-country-briefs

Morinière, L and Morrison-Métois, S: ‘Working across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus: What can we learn from evaluations?’ ODI/ALNAP 2023, https://alnap.org/humanitarian-resources/publicationsand-multimedia/working-across-the-humanitariandevelopment-peace-nexus-what-can-we-learn-fromevaluations/

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Syria,’ UNDP 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12288

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Yemen,’ UNDP 2024 (forthcoming)

LESSON 3

Beck, T., Chabikwa, R., and Garcia, O., ‘Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation (IAHE), 2021, quoted in Morinière, L and Morrison-Métois, S: ‘Working across the humanitariandevelopment-peace nexus: What can we learn from evaluations?’ ODI/ALNAP 2023, https://alnap.org/humanitarian-resources/publications-andmultimedia/working-across-the-humanitarian-developmentpeace-nexus-what-can-we-learn-from-evaluations/

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Results Group 4: ‘Country Brief on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: Somalia,’ IASC 2021, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitariandevelopment-collaboration/mapping-good-practicesimplementation-humanitarian-development-peace-nexusapproaches-country-briefs

Morinière, L and Morrison-Métois, S: ‘Working across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus: What can we learn from evaluations?’ ODI/ALNAP 2023, https://alnap.org/humanitarian-resources/publications-andmultimedia/working-across-the-humanitarian-developmentpeace-nexus-what-can-we-learn-from-evaluations/

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Support to Conflict-Affected Countries,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12441

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office, ‘Evaluation of UNDP

Support to the Syrian Refugee Crisis Response and Promoting and Integrated Resilience Approach, UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9898

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Lebanon,’ UNDP 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12277

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: PAPP,’UNDP 2022, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/15620

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Turkey,’ UNDP 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12289

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘UNDP support to poverty reduction in the least developed countries,’ UNDP 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9523

LESSON 4

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Results Group 4: ‘Country Brief on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: Cameroon,’ IASC 2021, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitariandevelopment-collaboration/mapping-good-practicesimplementation-humanitarian-development-peace-nexusapproaches-country-briefs

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Results Group 4: ‘Country Brief on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: Colombia,’ IASC 2021, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitariandevelopment-collaboration/mapping-good-practicesimplementation-humanitarian-development-peace-nexusapproaches-country-briefs

Morinière, L and Morrison-Métois, S: ‘Working across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus: What can we learn from evaluations?’ ODI/ALNAP 2023, https://alnap.org/humanitarian-resources/publications-andmultimedia/working-across-the-humanitarian-developmentpeace-nexus-what-can-we-learn-from-evaluations/

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Colombia,’ UNDP 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9396

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Nigeria,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12799

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘UNDP support to poverty reduction in the least developed countries,’ UNDP 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9523

LESSON 5

Morinière, L and Morrison-Métois, S: ‘Working across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus: What can we learn from evaluations?’ ODI/ALNAP 2023, https://alnap.org/humanitarian-resources/publications-andmultimedia/working-across-the-humanitarian-developmentpeace-nexus-what-can-we-learn-from-evaluations

UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina, ‘Evaluation of UNDP/UNESCO/UNICEF Dialogue for the Future (DFF) Project Final Report, UNDP 2016, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/7846

UNDP Fiji, ‘SOI Peace Building Project Phase II,’ UNDP 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9888

UNDP Gambia, ‘Midterm Outcome evaluation of the Governance Programme,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8882

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Support to Conflict-Affected Countries,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12441

UNDP Lebanon, ‘Outcome Evaluation of UNDP´s Crisis Prevention and Recovery Programme in Lebanon,’ UNDP 2019, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8723

UNDP South Sudan, ‘Final Evaluation of the United Nations Cooperation Framework,’ UNDP 2022, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/11193

UNDP South Sudan, ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the Country Programme Document (CPD),’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19372

UNDP Sudan, ‘Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund Phase II Evaluation,’ UNDP 2017, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8296

LESSON 6

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Support to Conflict-Affected Countries,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12441

LESSON 7

UNDP Independent Evaluation Office: ‘Evaluation of UNDP Support to Conflict-Affected Countries,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/1244

UNDP Kenya, ‘Terminal Evaluation Cross Border Cooperation Kenya-Ethiopia,’ UNDP 2021, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/13319

UNDP Papua New Guinea, ‘Creating Conditions for Peace in PNG Highlands, UNDP 2023, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/22347

UNDP Somalia, ‘Building Alternative Dispute Resolution Centres Based on Transformative Change: The example of Baidoa,’ UNDP 2021, https://www.undp.org/somalia/publications/nonviolentcommunication-adr-centres

UNDP Sudan, ‘Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund Phase II Evaluation,’ UNDP 2017, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/8296

United Nations and World Bank: ‘Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict.’ Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-14648-11623. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO, 2018,

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/4c 36fca6-c7e0-5927-b171-468b0b236b59