 Connecting the dots, visualizing the pee in the humanitarian development piece nexus. 75 years since the United Nations was founded, the world is facing an unprecedented set of challenges. Increased conflict and violence, millions of displaced people and geopolitics under strain. These challenges are all intertwined and COVID-19 brings additional pressure to an already precarious situation. The international aid system has been pushed to its breaking point and funding is unable to keep up with increased needs. 80% of humanitarian action takes place in conflict affected settings and the average length of humanitarian response is more than nine years. But none of this is new. During the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit we collectively recognized that conflict is the main driver of humanitarian needs, that the current system is not sustainable and that we collectively need to work on ending needs and yet progress has been extremely limited. The humanitarian development piece nexus. To resolve crises, increase our sustainable impact and be less necessary. We need to strengthen our collective efforts, work more in sync and less in silos. Local and national actors are an integral part since solutions are only sustainable when the process is both shaped and led by them. The humanitarian development piece nexus requires all of us with different mandates to ask ourselves how can we as international actors support local and national actors to end need and build more self-reliant resilient and peaceful societies. This is our North Star. While the idea of the nexus is gaining wider understanding and buy-in within the international aid system, the challenge remains on how we can put these concepts into practice. Contributing to peace is inherently political and we know that some of us might be hesitant or have concerns that deliberately contributing to peace may compromise humanitarian principles and access. Often, this is because there is a misunderstanding of what peace means and the avenues that exist to contribute to peace. Demystifying peace. On the one hand, peace can mean the absence of violence. This is generally referred to as negative peace. On the other hand, there is also positive peace, which implies removing the internal and structural reasons and conditions that lead to violence and conflict. To understand how we can all contribute to peace, it's also helpful to distinguish between peace with a capital P and peace with a lower case P. Peace with a capital P refers to political solutions to conflict. It often requires activities that directly aim to find a political solution or a securitized response to violent conflict. They typically have a higher profile and are generally more visible, like peacekeeping missions or high-level mediation processes. Peace with a lower case P refers to building trust and social cohesion between citizens and the state or between and amongst different communities. For example, by transforming relationships and by building capacities for peace and conflict prevention within institutions and society. Positive and negative peace, just like peace with a capital P and with a lower case P, represent different avenues and entry points for us as international actors to support locally led peace. What does this mean in practice? No intervention, whether having a humanitarian, development or peace nature, is ever truly conflict neutral. All interventions that bring in resources, affect power dynamics and alters relationships between local actors. Let's look at an example. Simple things, such as delivering seeds, can have major consequences when operating in a conflict affected setting. When seeds are given to one group and not to the other, without explaining the reason behind it, people can feel excluded and left out. Not explaining the decision can add to already existing grievances and can trigger violence. It is crucial that we know what we do and how we do things will have an impact on conflict dynamics, positive or negative. Working in a conflict sensitive way means deliberately minimizing potential negative impacts, that is doing no harm and maximizing positive impacts, that is doing more good. These should be minimum standards in all of our interventions. Going a step further requires shifting from a mandate-driven analysis to a problem-based approach. When we look at the context through the lens of our mandate, we only see a part of the needs and priorities. We need a wider lens to make sure we see all parts of the problem, as well as existing resilience to then collaborate with local actors to address what local people prioritize. Just like a surgeon wouldn't operate on the lungs without knowing the status of the heart. Based on this comprehensive analysis, we can each then identify how, according to our respective mandates, sphere of influences and capacities, we can best contribute to self-reliant, resilient and peaceful societies. Contributions can take different forms and focus on different aspects of peace, such as lower-cap peace. For example, when conducting our activities, we can strengthen the relationships between different social groups. We can strengthen the relationships between institutions and populations, such as supporting local authorities to lead planning processes or strengthen their role in the provision of services. We can address the dynamics of exclusion, for example of women, youth and other marginalized groups. We can strengthen the participation of all in decision-making. We can strengthen the capacities to address and prevent local-level conflicts, for example over natural resources. Ensuring conflict sensitivity and enhancing contributions towards peace does not require fundamental changes to what we do, but rather how we do it. It requires adaptations to programs, adaptations that are usually inexpensive and possible to implement with existing resources and capacities. What is crucial is the deliberate intent to contribute to peace through our activities, a solid understanding of the context and a willingness to continually learn and adapt. Such a peace-responsive approach can increase the effectiveness of our interventions and their contributions to peace. Let's take a look at another example. Access to food and nutrition is vital to lead active and healthy lives. Yet, the number of people experiencing severe food insecurity keeps increasing. Violent conflict leads to greater food insecurity. In its turn, unequal access to sources of food or basic services can increase the chances of violent conflict erupting or increasing. The South Kivu region, DRC, has been shattered by conflict and communal violence, including over scarce resources like food. Instead of merely distributing food to affected people, agencies have set up community listening groups. These groups provide a space for exchange and dialogue between different community members, including women, and have led to reduced tensions and collaboration between the different communities, and they've contributed to a more peaceful coexistence. The groups also increase the effectiveness of the more technical part of the response by improving access and participation of communities in rural developments and improved living conditions, all playing a role in eradicating hunger and poverty and building sustainable peace. In light of increased humanitarian needs due to conflict and to achieve the sustainable development goals, working in conflict-sensitive ways and contributing to peace is no longer optional. We all need to do more to deliver upon our promise, our North Star, of ending needs and support building forward better towards more self-reliant, resilient and peaceful societies. Let's leverage the increasing momentum for change and enhance collaboration across the humanitarian Development Peace Nexus to live up to our shared responsibility in pursuit of peace and progress for all.