Rodrigo Mena

Purpose: This paper examines why increasing the availability of climate and weather data alone is insufficient to enable effective climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. It aims to identify the conditions required to make climate data actionable and to propose a more inclusive framework for knowledge and action. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a conceptual, synthesis-based approach, drawing on existing literature and emerging practices in climate services. It integrates insights from research and implementation initiatives to develop six interrelated conditions that support the transformation of climate data into useable, context-specific knowledge. Findings: The paper identifies six key conditions for making climate data actionable: community-centered co-production, inclusive participation, multi-stakeholder collaboration, integrated knowledge infrastructures, the use of climate storylines and strengthened local–global linkages. Together, these conditions enable more relevant and actionable climate information. Originality/value: The paper contributes by synthesizing these conditions into a coherent framework and introducing the concept of “Knowledge–Action Networks.” This framework highlights the need to integrate technical, social and institutional dimensions, offering practical and conceptual value for researchers, policymakers and practitioners working on climate adaptation and disaster risk management.

This article examines how humanitarian governance in Colombia is shaped through the interaction of formal coordination mechanisms and informal, everyday practices. Using the humanitarian arena framework, alongside debates on localisation and the humanitarian–development–peace nexus, the article analyses humanitarian governance in Cúcuta, a border city affected by overlapping crises linked to armed conflict, migration, and structural inequality. Based on qualitative research including interviews, group discussions, and field observations, the study identifies a flexible and context-specific model of humanitarian governance that differs from conventional internationally led approaches. Findings show that humanitarian action in Cúcuta extends beyond emergency relief to include longer-term support for livelihoods, social protection, and community resilience. Humanitarian governance relies on both formal coordination structures and informal mechanisms, particularly las mesas , which facilitate negotiation, collaboration, and locally adapted responses. Nexus-oriented practices emerge organically from the realities of protracted crisis rather than through externally designed frameworks. The article contributes to debates on humanitarian governance by showing that negotiated humanitarian governance remains central even in contexts where state institutions retain significant regulatory authority. Rather than replacing formal governance arrangements, informal and everyday practices interact with them to shape humanitarian responses in complex crises.

This article examines the co-creation of a Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) framework in North-West Syria, a conflict-affected region increasingly exposed to seasonal flooding and the effects of climate change. In collaboration with the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets), the study combined mixed-methods risk and vulnerability analysis with a training programme for community responders between September 2024 and March 2025. Findings highlight the central role of civil society in bridging gaps between emergency response and longer-term risk reduction, particularly in contexts involving camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs). Key challenges include fragmented coordination, limited infrastructure capacity, and weak institutional memory, while opportunities emerge from strong informal early warning networks and community- level knowledge. The study contributes a scalable CBDRR framework tailored to conflict-affected settings, emphasizing early warning systems, adaptive coordination, and community-led risk governance.

This article explores how the humanitarian–development–peace (HDP) nexus (also known as the triple nexus) is operationalised, moving beyond policy discourse to implementation on the ground. Drawing on a systematic literature review, programme analysis, and field‐based observation, it proposes three operational approaches to the HDP nexus, integrated, nexus‐sensitive, and coordinated, which often appear in hybrid forms. Building on Paul Howe's (2019) ‘bundles and arrays’ framework, the typology moves the focus from individual project design to broader organisational strategies, institutional mandates, contextual realities, and trade‐offs shaping nexus practice. The analysis situates this within a decade of nexus discourse and implementation, addressing current pressures such as shrinking aid budgets and the integration of climate and displacement agendas, while examining their implications for operational practice. Rather than pursuing a universal model, the paper argues that effective practice resists standardisation, emerging instead from negotiation across shifting mandates, evolving priorities, and diverse contexts, offering a typology to guide context‐specific operational choices.

As academic research becomes more participatory and transformation-oriented, university ethics governance faces mounting pressure to move beyond procedural compliance. Existing ethics review systems are often criticised for risk aversion and standardisation, yet less attention has been paid to how ethics governance is enacted, interpreted, and negotiated by those who administer it. This study examines how institutional ethics review can function not only as a regulatory mechanism, but also as a generative site for institutional learning. Drawing on an action learning research design, we collaborated with members of a university research ethics board in the Netherlands. This approach enabled close examination of how its members navigate evolving ethical demands associated with the growing normative responses and expectations for academia and research institutions. Our analysis identifies a set of persistent tensions that give rise to two patterned governance logics: reflexive accountability , which emphasises safeguarding, institutional defensibility, and ex-ante procedural stabilisation; and accountable reflexivity , which frames ethics as an ongoing, relational practice oriented toward ongoing dialogue and situated judgment. Rather than representing opposing positions, we show how these logics coexist in productive tension in practice. Maintaining this tension helps explain why procedural reforms alone often fall short; it also reveals openings for more adaptive governance arrangements. Methodologically, the study contributes a relational and practice-oriented approach that positions research ethics board members as reflective practitioners rather than procedural gatekeepers. Analytically, it advances debates on ethics reform by reframing governance as a dynamic institutional practice. The paper concludes with four institutional imaginaries that operationalise the governance logics: regulatory ethics governance, embedded ethics facilitation, community-integrated ethics stewardship, and post-institutional research ethics ecosystems. Future research and engagement efforts can use these imaginaries as dialogical and dialectical anchor points for negotiating research ethics governance and institutional change.

This chapter explores the nexus concept in the humanitarian sector, emphasising the interconnectedness of different forms of assistance and the coordination of various forms of assistance; notably, between humanitarian action, development assistance, and peacebuilding efforts. The chapter traces the evolution of the humanitarian–development nexus to the humanitarian–development–peace triple nexus and examines its operations, motivations, actors, challenges, and implementation. It also explores open questions about effective project development and the roles of various actors. The chapter then considers an inverse nexus perspective, looking at how development activities connect to emerging humanitarian efforts, in particular in countries receiving long-term developmental aid that face sudden humanitarian crises. Following this, more recent developments in the nexus approach, specifically the integration of climate change and migration, are critically examined in terms of promotion, challenges, and limitations. This comprehensive overview concludes with reflections on the practicality of and future directions for the nexus approach.

Este artículo explora la idea crítica de que "no hay desastres naturales", un concepto que desafía la percepción tradicional de los desastres como fenómenos inevitables de la naturaleza. A través de un análisis de la literatura sobre estudios críticos de desastres, el pensamiento Latinoamericano y Caribeño, y el reciente giro ontológico, se argumenta que los desastres son en realidad productos de vulnerabilidades sociales, políticas y económicas acumuladas. El artículo examina cómo esta perspectiva redefine la comprensión y las intervenciones humanitarias, cuestionando el enfoque tradicional que ignora las causas estructurales de la vulnerabilidad. Además, se discute cómo esta visión crítica invita a repensar el papel de las intervenciones humanitarias, no solo como respuestas a emergencias, sino como acciones que deben considerar las desigualdades históricas y las relaciones de poder que sobredeterminan el presente. Finalmente, se plantea la cuestión de si, al aceptar que los desastres no son naturales, también podemos prevenir las crisis humanitarias a través de una mayor justicia social y equidad.

Humanitarian action and disaster risk reduction are essential in addressing global vulnerability to disasters and crises. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR), adopted in 2015, has garnered significant attention for its role in fostering disaster risk reduction. The role the SFDRR plays vis-à-vis humanitarian action represents a crucial space where policies, practices, and priorities (could) converge and diverge. Understanding the dynamics of this SFDRR-humanitarian action relationship is essential for advancing both disaster risk reduction and humanitarian goals. This article comprehensively examines this relationship since the adoption of the SFDRR. Employing a multimethod approach, including a systematic literature review, mapping exercise, and expert interviews, the study identified key themes and challenges in integrating the SFDRR within humanitarian action. Findings indicate that while SFDRR references are prevalent in post-disaster discussions, their full integration into humanitarian strategies remains nascent. Notably, advancements in anticipatory humanitarian action represent primary arenas for SFDRR integration within humanitarianism. The role of the International Disaster Response Law in bridging SFDRR and humanitarianism also emerged as an important finding. The study also underscored blurred distinctions between humanitarianism and disaster-related actions, highlighting the limited systemic integration of the SFDRR by traditional humanitarian actors. Moving forward, the study advocates for improved collaboration between humanitarian and disaster management sectors to strengthen disaster prevention, response, and mitigation. By examining the relationship between SFDRR objectives and modern humanitarian practices, this research aims to enhance disaster preparedness, response, and recovery strategies, alongside other crisis management approaches.

The Venezuelan crisis has led to over three million people crossing into Colombia. One strategy to address this situation is the Temporary Protection Statute (TPS), aimed at granting migrants legal status and responsibilities without providing them refugee status. Critics argue that portraying this solution as humanitarian might undermine its role as a protective measure. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding of the TPS as a political tool and the problems it aims to tackle. Using a Post-structural Policy Analysis (PPA), this article unpacks the TPS as a political device and the driving forces behind its development. Through text analysis and qualitative semi-structured interviews, the PPA reveals how the TPS in Colombia can be seen as a multifaceted legal and political tool bridging short-term humanitarian needs (primarily protection, healthcare, and labour market access) and long-term development practices (such as integration through ensuring economic, social, and environmental rights), within a complex political landscape hindering long-term solutions. Its legal text epitomises political drivers and discourses shaping migration governance and international protection. This study also shows PPA’s effectiveness in revealing these political factors and the policy-problem-making justifying the TPS as a solution, and offers case-based insights to enhance comparative migration studies.