Growing pains: South Sudan turns one

South Sudan’s first year has been characterised by conflict between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the Sudanese Armed Forces in border regions, widespread ethnic violence in Jonglei (and elsewhere), continued armed activity in South Sudan, and a fierce austerity budget in response to the oil shut-down. As the country celebrates its birthday, Saferworld asks whether the international community has followed its own advice for supporting peaceful development in the new nation.

South Sudan’s independence in July 2011 was a momentous and jubilant occasion. No one doubted that hard times lay ahead but there also seemed cause for cautious optimism – there had been little of the violence many had expected. The cold reality, however, was that the gravest disputes between Khartoum and Juba had not been resolved. The issues of good governance and unresolved conflict within South Sudan had not been fully addressed either.

However, much was made of the possibility of a fresh start for the world’s newest nation, a departure from the mistakes of yester-year. A report by Oxfam, supported by 38 other international non-governmental organisations, came up with ten key recommendations on how the international community could help promote peaceful development. The evidence a year on is that the recommendations still stand, but have yet to be put into practice. 

Balancing development assistance with continued support for emergency needs

The first of ten recommendations in the Oxfam report ‘Getting it Right from the Start’ called for balancing development assistance with continued support for emergency needs. At the time, there was concern among a range of implementing actors that moving too fast too early towards development assistance would leave gaps in capability for humanitarian responses. Twelve months later, development actors are increasingly diverting funds from development into emergency responses, threatening the fragile gains that have been made. The need to switch back and forth between humanitarian and development programming is not without precedent however.  The fragile operating environment in South Sudan has long required agencies to tread this line, sometimes on a seasonal basis. For example, emergency responses to outbreaks of water-borne diseases following floods occur on an almost annual basis in some states.

Community-focused research and analysis by Saferworld and others has clearly shown that the causes of South Sudan’s conflict and under-development are structural as well as short-term, and require responses at all levels. Focusing only on addressing the short-term emergency challenges will not fundamentally alter the structural issues and may condemn the country to many more years of lurching from crisis to crisis.

Ensuring integrated programming

This factor also underlies the report’s recommendation for donors to ensure integrated programming. Complex problems require agencies to have and use the ability to deliver holistic responses within a framework that allows for appropriate transitions between humanitarian and development programming, and between sectors, as needs dictate. What a holistic response might look like was described in detail in Saferworld’s People’s Peacemaking Perspectives briefing on South Sudan which looked at the conflict system between Unity, Lakes and Warrap states. This requires flexible, multi-year and multi-sector funding, designed to allow development assistance to support peace and security, and humanitarian assistance to fill short-term gaps. It does not appear yet that these have come to fruition.

Strengthening government capacity from the bottom up

The latest austerity budget has slashed the South Sudan government’s budget by 24%. Salaries have been maintained but implementing costs and infrastructure development have seen deep cuts. The government expects the international community to help fill the gap. The international community for its part is lukewarm, with many donors talking at best of ‘maintaining frontline services’. If this is the case, what does it mean for one of the reports’ other key recommendations, strengthening government capacity from the bottom up? 

Peaceful long-term development requires good governance and, among other things, a well-trained and rights-based security sector. Gains have been made in this respect but the current situation suggests they are not immune to the cuts. The implications on security and on the development of an accountable and responsive state at all levels could be significant. While donors are already bearing most of the load in the education and health sectors, the proportion of the budget allocated to pay SPLA and Organised Forces salaries naturally raises eyebrows (Organised Forces is the term used to describe the police, wildlife service, prison service and fire brigade, all of which are armed and often called to second staff to armed security operations, particularly in remote areas).  Yet if the government cannot maintain the security services payroll, security personnel could get restive. Similar situations in 2006 resulted in outbreaks of violence in some locations. The dilemma facing the international community is how best to support government capacity without absolving the government of its responsibility to its citizens, particularly as evidence of corruption within the government has become more visible.

Understanding conflict dynamics

This brings us to the recommendation that actors need to understand conflict dynamics. To grasp the implications that the current set of conditions has for security in South Sudan, it is vital that actors at all levels understand the links between conflict, insecurity and development, enabling them to deliver relief, development and peacebuilding interventions as part of a more integrated approach.

What does this mean in practice? Local government and implementing bodies, including civil society, need the ability to better analyse the context in which they are operating and be able to work ever more closely together. They need the ability to respond flexibly to changes in the operating environment. This will require a more sustained presence of implementing agencies at a far more localised level. They will need to have access to flexible fundraising mechanisms, with recognition that some interventions will fail, others may need to be shut down, and successes will need to be scaled up. This requires courage from government, donors and NGOs alike.

The outlook for South Sudan in the short and medium term is not positive. The austerity measures introduced by the government have yet to fully bite and may cut deeper as the impasse over oil supply routes continues. The situation in Sudan could become more unstable and continue destabilising South Sudan’s border states. The anxiety over where cuts will fall is palpable and may prove in itself to be a conflict driver for the future. Yet not all is negative.  The international community has not abandoned South Sudan. Agencies are not leaving. Donor funding remains stable.

What is critical is for all actors to recognise that despite the austerity budget exacerbating the situation, the same fundamental problems remain. A single focus on humanitarian responses will not solve them. It is understandable and reasonable that the international community should not feel compelled to pick up the cheque for the decisions made by the government. This does not, however, change the fact that strategic and long-term engagement is the only path towards sustainable change in South Sudan. A short-term focus on humanitarian responses cannot be an excuse to avoid this fact.

Be bold

The recommendations to balance development assistance with continued support for emergency needs, ensure integrated programming, strengthen government capacity from the bottom up and understand conflict dynamics are as valid today as they were a year ago. We know that crises will continue to occur. But most, like seasonal spikes in violence and humanitarian needs, can be foreseen and planned for. The international community must avoid being paralysed by indecision and follow a long-term strategy that recognises this. It must be bold and build programmes that can respond to different scenarios, such as unpaid security services and financial inflation. And it must improve the way it distributes support. These are not new recommendations, but now is the time to put them into practice.

Find out more about Saferworld's work in South Sudan