Across the Asia-Pacific region, crises are increasingly layered and long-lasting. From protracted conflicts in Myanmar and Afghanistan, to climate disasters in the Pacific, to the regional impacts of forced displacement and fragile governance, the challenges communities face are not one-dimensional. Yet too often, our responses still are.
This is where the call to link humanitarian, development and peace efforts—what many refer to as the “triple nexus”—becomes not just relevant, but urgent. It’s about recognising that people don’t live their lives in neat categories, so our assistance shouldn’t be boxed in either. The reality on the ground demands more adaptive, inclusive, and joined-up responses.
Why it’s time to rethink our models
Take the case of the Rohingya response in Bangladesh. Humanitarian aid remains critical, but it’s no longer enough to just meet immediate needs. Local NGOs and host communities are calling for more than just immediate aid – they want longer-term planning, education support, mental health services, social cohesion, and sustainable livelihoods. Similar patterns play out in Afghanistan, where humanitarian needs are at an all-time high, but development efforts and peace-building remain underfunded or disconnected.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific, where climate shocks like cyclones and rising sea levels are a constant threat, communities are caught in a cycle of disaster response with little opportunity to build long-term resilience or investment in peace and governance. It’s clear that the humanitarian response system, as it exists now, is stretched to its limits—and not designed to go it alone.
Collaboration must become the default, not the exception
Breaking the siloed nature of international aid is easier said than done, but it starts with more intentional collaboration:
- Government actors need to be engaged as long-term planners, not just as response facilitators.
- Humanitarian organisations must work in lockstep with development partners to ensure handovers are not just timely but also seamless.
- Peace-building organisations, often operating in the margins, should be recognised as central to building sustainable futures in conflict and post-conflict zones.
- Local and national NGOs must be in the driver’s seat, equipped and trusted to lead across all three areas—not just as responders, but as change agents.
Philanthropy and private foundations: An underutilised force
Philanthropic organisations and private foundations can play a catalytic role in reshaping how we engage with complex crises. Unlike traditional bilateral donors, they often have greater flexibility to fund cross-sectoral approaches, take risks, and support innovation.
For example, some private foundations in Asia-Pacific are investing in climate-smart infrastructure, youth peace-building programmes, and community-led preparedness—all of which bridge humanitarian and development goals. Others are supporting locally led organisations that are otherwise overlooked in formal humanitarian coordination spaces.
Yet, these contributions often happen in parallel to international aid efforts, rather than in coordination with them.
Imagine the potential if foundations, NGOs, and government actors planned together, aligned goals, and shared data. That’s the kind of synergy we need to build more resilient systems.
Making the most of limited humanitarian aid
With growing humanitarian needs and shrinking resources, the sector must also come to terms with its limits. It’s time to redefine roles and expectations:
- Humanitarian actors should focus on what they do best—rapid response, life-saving interventions, and principled access—while building stronger bridges to long-term recovery.
- Development and peacebuilding partners must step in sooner, not years later, to build continuity and reduce dependence.
- Donors should shift away from short-term funding cycles and rigid categories, and instead back multi-year, flexible initiatives that allow for adaptive programming.
- Collective impact models—where actors pool resources, data, and knowledge toward a shared goal—can make scarce funds go further.
Moving forward: What NGOs can do
NGOs don’t need to wait for permission to lead the change. There’s much they can do now:
- Break down internal silos between humanitarian and development teams. This can be as simple as starting a monthly meeting to see where priorities overlap.
- Partner with unconventional allies—from local peace-builders to private foundations. Build your network for impact.
- Engage communities in defining what recovery and peace mean for them.
- Advocate to donors for flexible funding that supports adaptive programming. Negotiate amendments to projects if assessments and consultations show the plan does not meet communities’ priorities.
- Use their convening power to bring actors together around shared solutions.
Conclusion: From parallel tracks to shared journeys
The way forward lies in humility and partnership. No single actor can address the scale of today’s challenges alone. But together—with shared vision, trust, and collective action—we can build responses that don’t just react to crisis, but also transform systems for the better.
The Asia-Pacific region has the diversity, innovation, and leadership to show what a truly joined-up approach can look like.
The question is: are we ready to invest in it?
