Being prepared for difficult challenges: Conflict sensitivity during times of crisis

This blog was originally published on the CSRF website.

This blog by Natalia Chan and the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF) recognises the difficult challenges facing South Sudan, and the risks that can be experienced by donors and aid actors. The blog proposes important conflict sensitivity considerations for aid actors during times of crisis.

The CSRF was set up in the period following South Sudan’s collapse into civil war in December 2013. It was inspired in great part by a period of soul searching as the international community sought to understand how it had missed the signs which pre-empted the sudden escalation of violent national conflict and to navigate the complexities of the extent to which overseas development aid and international cooperation were deeply intertwined with the political economy of South Sudan.

Over subsequent years, there have been many moments of important honest reflection, shared and applied learning and shifts in aid policy, practice and understanding. At the same time, institutional memory has shifted and been lost as thousands of colleagues (international and South Sudanese) have come and gone or transitioned to other positions, while South Sudanese knowledge, expertise and memory have also remained undervalued. Old mistakes have been repeated and the tectonics of conflict dynamics have continued to shift beneath our feet, often according to tipping points and triggers which seem to remain obscure to many international stakeholders. As we enter a period of greatly heightened pressure, the aid sector is at grave risk of further losing lessons, wisdom and key principles at a time when they are more important than ever.

The escalating political tensions in South Sudan during the months of February and March 2025 have led to fears for the tenuous political stability that has held over recent years, with warning signs reminiscent of past pre-crisis periods. At the same time, the consequences of the USAID and other aid cuts amidst a shrinking donor landscape are having a destabilising effect; given South Sudan’s dependence on aid, the repercussions are keenly felt right down to household level. This is especially acute given that the aid sector is thought to be the second biggest employer in the country and with the dependence of family networks on salaries for economic support.

Amidst fears of severe escalation, here are five key considerations to help navigate the challenges we may face over 2025:

1) Apply lessons on balancing urgent, short-term action with long-term consequences: 

During times of crisis, there is often huge pressure to make urgent decisions and prioritisation due to very rapid changes in volatile contexts. This can result in challenging dilemmas, particularly when information is incomplete for decision-making and the pace of change is overwhelming. This may be particularly acute given how analysis and coordination capacity have been badly hit by recent aid cuts. However, the long-term impact of such decisions can result in unintended consequences, which can contribute to increasing the risk of conflict further down the road.

Yet it is important to continue to build on the lessons of better practice in South Sudan – including previous experience of being prepared for and adapting to crisis. This means ensuring that senior decision makers as well as those at the frontline of delivering aid and locally led action are able to make appropriate time and space to consider the short-term, but also the long-term impacts of aid decisions. This may help to avert conflict, lessen the impact of crisis and assist rapid decision making in a highly fluid environment. Different levels of analysis include: a) analysis of immediate ongoing developments and changes to conflict dynamics (including triangulating the accuracy of information); b) analysis or contextualisation of these developments against the backdrop of longer-term trends, which requires long-term context expertise to situate them in historic timelines and bigger picture patterns, and; c) analysis of how aid actors and interventions are interacting with these dynamics.

• South Sudanese experts, practitioners and communities have a wealth of knowledge and experience based on long-term engagement with aid interventions in South Sudan, having navigated extremely difficult circumstances over many years. Fostering spaces and relationships to enable collective analysis to inform contingency planning, to understand warning signs and to inform urgent decisions is critical. The CSRF’s research repository contains a wealth of information on good practice, evidence and contextual information and is easily searchable based on theme or geographic locality. Accessing and using this repository of knowledge and good practice can help enable aid actors to understand the context and to design programmes that can miminise the negative impact of interventions and maximise positive contributions.

2) It’s time to rethink what ‘locally led’ really means:

Localisation has long been a buzz word in South Sudan, and there have been many research papers published, meetings and working groups convened and commitments made over the past decade to discuss what global commitments should look like when translated into changes to structures, policy and practice. However, on a longitudinal basis, while some things have changed, much has remained the same in terms of where the power lies, how decisions are made, and which kind of knowledge and expertise is valued.

Constrained global resources for aid alongside shifts in context dynamics due to rising tensions and an escalating risk of conflict mean that huge pressures will be placed on South Sudanese NGOs, civil society, community organisations and mutual aid. If the risk of crisis is increasing while the size and scale of the international aid sector is shrinking, there is even more need for transformational change to be prioritised to enable these to flourish. Renewed thinking on what a reimagined aid system might look like will be catalysed by the global changes in attitudes towards international development assistance and aid cooperation. This can be an opportunity for accelerating positive transformation, however this will depend on the processes and how such changes are shaped, particularly avoiding the risk of building or perpetuating unhelpful structures, behaviours and practice.

• Ensure that efforts to rethink global aid systems, structures and pathways place local experience at the centre and reflect country-specific contexts and challenges. While South Sudan has been highly dependent on international aid, there are also many examples of local volunteer and community led initiatives, and civil society-designed grassroots interventions based on both long-term experience and new innovations. Learning from these experiences and thinking outside of the status quo of existing aid structures is needed to highlight vital ideas and insights. There are also many lessons based on attempts to localise aid in South Sudan, which should be widely known by now and these must be applied as standard practice with clear accountability. Engaging with diverse perspectives and expertise outside of Juba and from across South Sudan is critical, rather than basing assumptions on smaller groups of representatives.

3) Ensure the understanding is context-specific and ‘pre-position’ knowledge:

Conflict dynamics and the factors affecting vulnerability in South Sudan are highly specific to local contexts but also overlap across subnational and national levels. Assumptions around a seemingly ‘local’ conflict (often referred to as inter-communal violence) can obscure the influence of high-level political interests and interactions across conflict systems – including across borders. This complexity can be challenging and reinforce how distant the rest of South Sudan can seem from Juba, however investing in knowledge and analysis does not have to be an unwieldy process. It is also possible to ‘pre-position’ knowledge and pre-emptively prioritise understanding of areas which are prone to certain kinds of conflict (e.g. linked to seasonal changes such as flooding or droughts) or to focus on dynamics around hotspot areas. This can be operationalised in adaptive programming approaches (see below).

• Invest in sustaining institutional capacity and knowledge, including reflection spaces on operational lessons from previous experience in South Sudan, and ensure that designated conflict sensitivity champions and focal points within organisations sustain this. Dedicated spaces for collective analysis and knowledge sharing – including informal or dedicated spaces and those convened within existing coordination – can be essential for sharing information on changes to the context and identifying gaps in knowledge. This can also help to strengthen joint principles, red lines and collective approaches to avoiding fuelling conflict which become increasingly important during armed conflict.

4) Avoid reverting to siloed thinking to leverage important combined strengths:

There is greater focus on consolidating resources – more so due to the significant pressures on the global aid system. No aid project or initiative in South Sudan is immune to conflict dynamics, particularly in a context of economic and political crisis and heightened tensions. While there can be a tendency to withdraw into technical siloes as a knee jerk reaction to stress, changes in context (particularly violent and sudden changes) present an opportunity for more coordinated action and collective response. Years of protracted response in South Sudan have only sharpened focus on the importance of working in collaborative and joined up ways – something the aid sector has repeatedly sought to do at the national level, though greater success in that regard has been achieved at the local or area-based level.

Support for local peacebuilding is often the first thing to be deprioritised in funding and operational decisions following the onset of crisis in favour of the perceived pure hardware of emergency response, however despite this local peacebuilders have persisted with their engagement and provide critical leadership. They have proven themselves to play an invaluable role in maintaining critical relationships with and between communities and helping to sustain humanitarian lifelines while supporting social protection and resilience. Furthermore, with the rainy season just around the corner, approaches which also draw on climate resilience, combined climate/conflict early warning and nature-based solutions also offer other important opportunities to work in more integrated ways.

• Nurture and invest in specific convening spaces, outreach and relationships which better enable common language, understanding and integrated practice across siloes and sectors, including proactively engaging South Sudanese community leaders, civil society and aid practitioners in these spaces. Commitment to collaborative working and collective objectives should be strengthened, especially because the cluster coordination system is being increasingly strained due to budget cuts. In a crisis-hit situation, such connections are critical for triangulating analysis and maximising strengths for effective response. Recognising the value of diverse skillsets and perspectives is also critical, for example the experience and actions of local peacebuilders and those involved in locally led peacebuilding are invaluable during times of crisis.

5) Adaptive programming is paramount:

‘Traditional’ models of aid delivery, based on linear, top-down decisions, upwards accountability and rigid technical siloes have been increasingly challenged when tested in the volatile and unpredictable environments of humanitarian crises – particularly in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Adaptive management approaches are based on the premise that aid actors working in complex, unstable environments must develop strong analysis alongside the ability to use that analysis to develop flexible, responsive ways of working. This requires an ongoing process of analysis, testing, learning and adapting to effectively deepen and improve its analysis and operational approach over time.

• Adaptive programming does not have to become a highly technical exercise, rather it can be supported by understanding and integrating some key principles (for example, as detailed in the CSRF Adapative programming paper). Integrating regular review, decentralised decision making and flexible protocols is key. In addition, ensuring community engagement throughout (including through participatory analysis) is also important to understand contextual nuances and build on local knowledge, expertise and practice.

These considerations help to illustrate how conflict sensitivity is even more important during times of crisis. As we endure what seems likely to continue to be a tumultuous year, we hope this blog helps to spark reflection and prompt further discussion on the kinds of questions and tools which will help the aid sector in South Sudan to navigate a challenging environment.