In humanitarian work, the most visible moment is usually the peak of a crisis — the surge of needs, the rapid scale-up, the urgency of saving lives. Yet after more than two decades of coordinating and leading WASH responses across Ethiopia, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Nigeria and other contexts, I have come to believe that the real test of our work often comes later: when the emergency begins to downgrade.
That transition — from acute response to longer-term resilience — is where the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus stops being a framework on paper and becomes a practical discipline. Lessons from Ethiopia Coordinating the national and regional WASH Cluster in Ethiopia during successive droughts, cholera outbreaks and conflict responses made this lesson very concrete. In the acute phase, the priority was clear: deliver life-saving water, sanitation and hygiene services as quickly as possible through a large number of partners. As the intensity of the crisis eased in different regions, the questions changed. How do we hand over responsibilities? How do we strengthen government systems rather than create parallel ones? How do we reduce the likelihood that the next shock will require the same level of external response? One approach that proved particularly valuable in this shift was Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS). Instead of focusing primarily on constructing toilets, CLTS emphasised triggering collective behaviour change and community ownership. This helped address open defecation in a way that emergency hardware alone could not sustain. It also created a stronger foundation for longer-term sanitation outcomes once the emergency phase declined. When communities themselves decided that open defecation was unacceptable, the results were more durable than externally driven construction targets. The transition required deliberate effort: aligning partners with government priorities, supporting national and regional systems, investing in localisation of coordination structures, and linking emergency response planning with contingency and resilience frameworks. Insights from Bangladesh A similar pattern emerged in Bangladesh while leading a large multi-sectoral response that included significant WASH components. In the midst of the Rohingya crisis response, we undertook a structured learning review. The purpose was not only to improve the ongoing emergency operation, but to generate insights that could inform three-year programming. The review helped shift the conversation from pure emergency coverage toward pathways that involved government institutions, local partners and host communities more meaningfully. It reinforced the importance of designing responses that could evolve rather than simply end when funding cycles changed.
Local-led coordination in Nigeria
More recent experience in northeast Nigeria reinforced these lessons in a different context. Leading WASH sector coordination across the BAY states meant working with more than 100 local NGOs and dozens of partners while advancing localisation and the broader Humanitarian Reset agenda.
A one-size-fits-all approach does not work in complex, protracted crises. What proved essential was a framework for local-led coordination that leveraged existing local structures for more tailored and sustainable responses. Key actions included:
- Developing coordination toolkits, online resources and workshops to strengthen capacity and help preserve institutional memory.
- Integrating risk alerts and contingency planning into coordination processes so that teams could move from reaction toward more proactive crisis management.
- Adapting coordination approaches to different types of crisis and deliberately engaging local and traditional leaders to build trust, accountability and community acceptance.
When coordination is rooted in local leadership, trust and adaptability, the outcomes are more likely to be both effective in the short term and sustainable beyond the emergency phase.
What consistently made the difference
Across these and other contexts, a few principles stood out:
- Treat transition as a deliberate process, not an afterthought that begins only when funding declines.
- Align with government systems from the beginning, rather than treating national and local authorities as secondary actors.
- Invest in localisation of coordination so that local organisations, institutions and traditional structures can progressively take the lead.
- Use approaches that build ownership, such as CLTS, instead of creating dependency on external construction and maintenance.
- Link emergency tools with longer-term planning — connecting response plans, contingency planning, risk alerts and resilience frameworks so they reinforce one another.
- Keep communities at the centre. Solutions that ignore local priorities, capacities and leadership rarely survive beyond the project cycle.
The HDP Nexus is sometimes discussed in abstract terms. In practice, it means designing programmes that save lives today while simultaneously reducing future humanitarian needs. It means recognising that governments will remain long after international agencies scale down. And it means accepting that quality, ownership and systems strengthening are not luxuries to be added later — they are part of effective emergency response itself.
The programmes that performed best in my experience were those that began planning for the “day after” while still responding to the emergency. They treated the transition not as a separate phase, but as an integral part of the response.
The question I continue to ask myself, and that I offer to colleagues in the sector, is this: How deliberately are we designing today’s emergency response so that it contributes to tomorrow’s resilience?