Maintaining coherence in policy formulation and implementation requires the systematic promotion of mutually reinforcing policy actions across government departments and agencies, creating synergies toward achieving the agreed objectives. In the pursuit of sustainable development, governments must enhance their capacity to design, implement, monitor, evaluate and revise coherent and integrated policies accordingly. Policy coherence entails coordination across sectors and ministries to ensure efforts are mutually reinforcing. This requires a long-term vision and corresponding strategies that identify trade-offs, reconcile domestic and international objectives, and mind how domestic policies impact other countries and future generations. Since 2015, policy coherence is typically understood to entail alignment among environmental, social, and economic policies to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

A further dimension of policy coherence in sustainable development, in general, and confronting ongoing crises and crisis recovery, in particular, ensures that immediate and short-term interventions be integrated, aligned and harmonious with longer-term and indigenous/self-determined institution-building and policy formulation development approaches and processes, within the applicable framework of human rights and the corresponding obligations of states to fulfill those human rights obligations’ dual preventive and remedial functions.

In the FFA negotiations, certain states opposed language referring to their obligations within the UN Charter’s human rights pillar. In particular, they rejected reference to the extraterritorial dimension of those obligations. Nonetheless, the CSM/CSIPM prevailed in the negotiations to preserve a reference to obligations under human rights and humanitarian law in the adopted FFA (paras. 12–13, 22(xiii), 26(v) and 26(vii)).

Rather than distinguishing among humanitarian, development and human rights approaches, the FFA defines “policy coherence” in paragraphs 15 and 16 accordingly. The consensus language as:

“15. Overarching values informing the Framework are: respect for human rights and international humanitarian law; human dignity; non-discrimination; equality and justice; gender sensitivity and equality; holistic and sustainable approach; consultation and participation; rule of law; transparency; and accountability. In addition, avoid exacerbating manifestations, specific challenges, or the underlying causes of protracted crises.

16. The Framework strives to strengthen policy coherence in line with the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, by fostering coordination of policies and actions taken in the fields of humanitarian assistance, development and human rights policies and actions taken in the fields of humanitarian assistance, development and human rights.”

The UN Charter-based approach demands the pursuit of the Organization’s triple purpose of (1) peace and security, (2) forward (now-sustainable) development and (3) human rights. None of these purposes is dispensable, but require corresponding action on the part of its specialized agencies, beyond mere technical interventions available and practiced in the academic and corporatist sectors. Ensuring that approach, integrating human rights, is the unique inter-agency mandate of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, her/his Office and its officers.

In 2016, one year after the FFA’s adoption, the UN Secretary-General convened the World Humanitarian Summit, where similar humanitarian, development and human rights alignment was discussed. However, states did not agree to adopt a deliberated outcome document from the Summit. Nonetheless, the S-G’s report reflected the alignment of humanitarian, development, human rights, and peace and security, and cooperation among actors in those respective fields.

Abandoning Human Rights: A New “Triple Nexus”

In 2016, OECD member states recognized that more countries were experiencing violent conflict than at any time in nearly 30 years. In February 2019, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) adopted its Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, with the stated intention of fostering greater coherence among actors working to strengthen “resilience” in fragile contexts and address—if not also to remedy—the root causes of humanitarian challenges. 

The OECD-promoted triple ‘humanitarian-development-peace nexus’ omits and disregards the principles enshrined in the FFA paragraphs 4, 8, 16, 26(v)(viii). Conspicuously, it disregards states’ human rights obligations, indeed obligations at all.

Later in 2019, UNDP also adopted the OECD’s triple nexus, despite the purposes of the UN Charter and the integrity promised in the Vienna Declaration and the coordination mandated to OHCHR. UNDP also established its Nexus Academy in 2021 with the objective to foster a common understanding of the Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus approach through a wide range of stakeholders and partners, including bilaterals, multilateral agencies, and NGOs.