Humanitarian Response

An FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM) visited South Sudan from 15 to 20 December 2019 to estimate the cereal production during 2019 and assess the overall food security situation in the country. The CFSAM reviewed the findings of several Crop Assessment Missions conducted from June to December 2019 at planting and harvest time in different agro-ecological zones of the country.

This Briefing Paper examines how UN peace operations are using casualty data to enhance the implementation of key elements of their mandates, including the protection of civilians (PoC), the promotion and protection of human rights, and conflict prevention, thereby contributing to achieving UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.1: ‘Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related deaths rates everywhere’.

It argues that, in the absence of data from state institutions, UN peace operations can be a good alternative source of data in conflicts where they operate for measuring SDG 16 Indicator 16.1.2: ‘Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population, by sex, age and cause’. The paper assesses the current casualtyrecording efforts of three of the largest UN missions operating in highly volatile contexts: the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), and the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). The aim is to obtain a fuller understanding of these missions’ functions—and the gaps in aligning their data collection efforts with the fulfilment of elements of their mandate and the recording of data relevant to SDG Indicator 16.1.2.

The ability to predict and analyze famine has improved sharply in the past fifteen years. However, the political influences on data collection and analysis in famine and extreme food security emergencies continue to limit evidence-based prevention and response. In many emergencies, good quality data are not readily available, which makes it easy to undermine analysis processes and distort findings. In some cases, these processes are even shut down for political reasons. Sometimes governments or armed groups are the party influencing results for political ends. But it can also be agencies, donors, and even local leaders.

This study documents those political influences, synthesizing findings from six different country case studies (five of which have been considered at risk of famine in recent years) including in South Sudan, noting separate influences on data collection and on analysis processes and the way these play out. Famine analysis will never be free of political influences, but this study recommends good practice for better managing political influences.

The extensive flooding in South Sudan in 2020 has led to significant displacement across the country. Over the past few months, there has been a large influx of primarily flood-affected Dinka into the Mangalla area, in the northern part of Juba County, Central Equatoria. While many of these Internally Displaced People (IDPs) were displaced by flooding in Jonglei state, others are arriving from the Shirikat neighbourhood in Juba. The arrival of large numbers of people into the Mangalla area, and the accompanying humanitarian response, has the potential to exacerbate existing tensions between the Bari and Mundari residents of Mangalla over control of land and other commercially signficant resources in the area. In addition, there are also fears amongst Mangalla residents that some recent arrivals are not fleeing floods, but rather seeking commercial opportunities in the area. As a result, it is important that donors and humanitarian actors understand the underlying conflict dynamics and drivers in Mangalla, and that the response is planned and implemented using a conflict sensitive lens.

This review explores the magnitude of this year’s flood and its impacts in Bor Town. We used a boat to get us around the town surveying the extent of flood water and measuring its depth in the streets and in the residential neighborhoods. We also used the GPS to capture the geographical coordinates submerged under water, showing exactly the depth of flood in the town by locations.

How are children with disabilities faring during the covid-19 pandemic?
What added challenges are children with disabilities facing in the current crisis?
Are children with disabilities accessing online learning?
How are families of children with disabilities coping with the socioeconomic fallout?
Several months into the COVID-19 crisis, the questions above remain largely unanswered. However, evidence is beginning to emerge that points to increased risks for children with disabilities as well as reduced access to services. Understanding such risks and assessing the socioeconomic impact of the pandemic are key to shaping a response that takes into account the needs of all children.

Since the start of the crisis, governments have struggled to meet unprecedented demands. Disruptions to services, ranging from education to child protection, have been documented, with disproportionate effects on the most vulnerable children and families. In many cases, governments have responded creatively and adapted services to address critical needs. Documenting such disruptions along with mitigation measures is central to spotlighting the immediate and long-term interventions that must be put in place to ensure the safety and well-being of all children.

While much has been learned, far more remains unknown. Research and data collection are needed to draw attention to the experiences of children with disabilities during the pandemic, to advocate for a range of services to be available now and in the future, and to inform the design of specific interventions. That said, children and adults with disabilities are likely to remain invisible in data collection efforts, unless dedicated measures are put in place to make such efforts disability-inclusive.

As more data on children with disabilities become available, the insights they offer must be woven into the public discourse surrounding the pandemic so that the needs of these children are considered during the decision-making processes leading to a response.

Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) seeks to integrate humanitarian principles and the protection of civilians
within its mandate and operations. This paper details the ways in which these laws and principles were promoted through negotiation, advocacy, dissemination and training and the monitoring and follow-up of violations and abuses. It seeks to distil specific lessons from working with armed opposition movements, as distinct from sovereign governments, in particular the concern of humanitarian agencies that they may provide or be seen to provide legitimacy to those who mistreat their populations.

Aid agencies working in south Sudan have sought to place the protection of civilians and the integrity of humanitarian assistance at the centre of their mandate. This approach sees complex emergencies as social and political phenomena, as much crises of human rights as of humanitarian need. In such situations, the victims of conflict require not only material assistance but also protection of their safety, dignity and basic human rights. A fundamental assumption of the paper is that, as pointed out by the detailed Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (1996), lack of coherent political and policy leadership amongst aid agencies has led to many of their programmes failing those whom they seek to help.

Protection of civilians is achieved through the application of international law and principles such as the primacy of the humanitarian imperative, neutrality, impartiality, accountability, transparency and the protection of victims. The challenge lies not simply with the definition of the legal and ethical standards but in their implementation and enforcement.

The OLS experience is used to highlight broader dilemmas confronting the international humanitarian community. These include the lack of coherent political leadership in most humanitarian programmes,

sovereignty issues, the trade-offs between protection and assistance, the role of coordination in defining and protecting mandates, and the conditions under which the withdrawal of assistance might be considered morally acceptable.

Underpinning this paper is the assertion that

humanitarian principles and standards should lie at the centre of such programmes. While recognising that political authorities are ultimately responsible for protecting civilians and the integrity of humanitarian assistance, implementing agencies and those who fund them also need to address these issues more effectively.

Conflict and humanitarian crises increase the risk of both intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence against women and girls. The authors measured the prevalence and risk factors of different forms of violence against women and girls in South Sudan, which has suffered decades of conflict, most recently in 2013.

Although a peace agreement that includes important steps to build a stable andpeaceful South Sudan was signed in 2015, the future of the country remains highlyuncertain. Violent confrontations and human rights abuses continue and frequentlyit appears that parties have more faith in victory after a renewed offensive, than inpeace. Yet, although implementation of the peace agreement is lagging, talks progress, albeitpainfully slowly and with few results. In this environment, future scenarios are useful as theygather thoughts on possible long-term developments, stimulate open debate and may assist inpolicy planning.

The scenarios described in this report are intended to give a picture of how South Sudan mightlook in 2020, determined by three key uncertainties:

1 Will life in South Sudan be dominated by war and armed political conflict or willthere be predominantly peace – or at least the absence of large-scale armedpolitical violence?

2 Will South Sudan make progress towards good governance or will the countryface a further downturn towards bad governance?

3 Will governance in South Sudan be further decentralised (by design or violently)or will there be no further decentralisation and central governance is perhaps strengthened even further?

The five scenarios presented in this report are:

1 United in diversity: The 2015 peace agreement holds and the peace processleads to a further decentralised federal system and better guarantees for goodgovernance. The organisation of free and fair elections is one of the first stepsin a long and difficult process towards sustainable peace.

2 Divided leadership: After the opposition rejects the election results, its forcesoccupy part of the country, effectively splitting the country in two. The war stabilisesalong a frontline and consequently some of the improvements that had beenmade in good governance and development are maintained.

3 Fragmentation: After the peace agreement breaks down, slowly the governmentcollapses and opposition groups fragment. South Sudan lacks any form of nationalgovernance system. Politics is local and about the highest price: life and security.

4 21 Kingdoms: After a bloody victory of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movementin Opposition (SPLM-IO), South Sudan is divided into 21 states based on ethnicpower divisions. Some states do reasonably well, while others face ethnic conflictsand autocracy.

5 Dictatorship: With the SPLM-IO reduced to a low-level insurgency, the SudanPeople’s Liberation Movement in Government (SPLM-IG) embraces anyonewilling to return back to the party. The new 28 states do not lead to furtherdecentralisation as the SPLM-IG leadership reduces the political space for anyremaining opposition and dissent.

The first main message from the scenarios is that there is hope. If the parties stick to the 2015peace agreement and implement, consolidate and deepen the peace process, slowly South Sudanmay be on the road towards a positive future: the United in diversity scenario.

The second main message is that, if this is not the case, the 2015 peace agreement does nothold and the peace process is not opened-up, the future is far less hopeful. Broadly speaking,the scenarios show that the alternatives to the scenario United in diversity, as portrayed in thefour other scenarios, entail horrible devastation and/or repression.

This report that discusses opportunities provided by livestock in South Sudan referring to famine, access and conflict sensitivity is based on research conducted by Naomi Pendle and the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF) in 2017. The research was funded by the UK, Swiss, and Canadian Donor Missions in South Sudan.