This blog highlights the benefits of strengthening coordination between humanitarian, peacebuilding and development actors implementing aid responses in South Sudan, particularly in times of humanitarian crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It was written by Nora Schmidlin from the Analysis and Impact team at swisspeace, with input from CSRF colleagues.

The triple nexus is getting a lot of attention, both in global capitals, such as here in Bern, where I am based, as well as in countries where it is being operationalized. Here at swisspeace, we have been looking at factors that support or inhibit more coherent action across humanitarian, development and peacebuilding programming. Over the last few months, we have been talking to aid workers in South Sudan, and hearing their views. It is clear from this that more integrated and coherent action between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors in South Sudan is essential for improving the effectiveness of aid delivery in the country. A more coordinated approach would not only minimize duplication of efforts or the risk that programmes in one sector undermine programmes in the other, but also presents the agencies and donors with the opportunity to mainstream peacebuilding principles through all their programmes. At swisspeace we see this as a wise investment, given that conflict and violence often undermine livelihoods and service provision gains or that incoherence across programmes can exacerbate tensions between communities, undermine confidence in the aid system and allow for aid to be captured or manipulated for political or economic gain by conflict actors.

Calls for a move towards a more integrated approach to aid in South Sudan are not new. In the Aiding the Peace multi-donor evaluation, conducted in 2009/2010 to inform planning for South Sudan’s anticipated independence, the report highlights the aid community’s challenges in grappling with how to effectively link humanitarian, development and peacebuilding programmes in the country.

The impact of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic is both a public health emergency and a socioeconomic crisis, impacting on health and education systems, livelihoods and gender norms, while also threating  stability and peace. It has profound implications for the whole aid sector in South Sudan, requiring agencies to pivot towards responding to COVID-19 while continuing to ensure programmes meet existing priorities and needs. This has put further strain on an already pressured and complex operating environment. In areas such as Maban or at UN Protection of Civilian (PoC) sites where there are historical tensions between host and displaced communities, the pandemic is likely to further exacerbate these tensions, especially where host communities perceive that COVID-19 programming and preparedness disproportionately targets IDP communities. Additionally, the pressure to respond quickly to the impacts of the pandemic, although necessary and understandable, may come at the expense of investing in considered and shared analysis, knowledge exchange and coordination amongst humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors. Yet it is precisely these sorts of activities (the triple nexus in practice) that can make aid more effective in supporting the long-term resilience that will help people to better cope with shocks, such as COVID-19, and manage conflict.

Local tendencies towards ‘nexus’ approaches

The value of local actors in South Sudan, such as national NGOs (NNGOs) and the widely-trusted faith-based organizations (FBOs), in demonstrating a strengthened ‘nexus’ approach should not be overlooked. Local institutions have historically tended to use approaches that combine peacebuilding, development and humanitarian elements in their programming due to their more intimate understanding of the communities from which they originate. Rather than approaching issues from a thematic/siloed perspective, local organizations are expected, by their communities, to respond to the pressing needs within them. This may give such actors additional foresight not so commonly found in international organizations to anticipate where conflicts may arise and where opportunities to highlight commonalities between communities may lie.

As NNGOs become increasingly reliant on international funding, however, their integrated approach is being adapted to align with the more siloed humanitarian, development and peacebuilding approach used by many international agencies and donors. As highlighted in the 2019 report by DanChurchAid, The Nexus and Local Faith Actors in South Sudan, this may result in the dismantling, rather than learning from, NNGOs’ more integrated approaches. Rather than giving local organizations the decision-making power needed to operate according to their observations and relationship with target communities, the work of NNGOs can often end up being subject to donor priorities, forcing them to pursue funding streams within one silo and jump between short-term priorities. While this is not unique to NNGOs in South Sudan, as it is a challenge also faced by INGOs, NNGOs tend to have less influence within the aid system to push back, and, given their financial constraints, are often not in a position to refuse funding.

Barriers to integrated approaches

While there is potential to strengthen the nexus approach in South Sudan, some limitations do exist. As in many places, the volume of aid is heavily skewed towards responding to immediate humanitarian needs. Humanitarian funding, even in protracted crises, is often constrained by short-term funding cycles and a need to focus on meeting the most urgent, immediate issues. Longer-term considerations, while recognized as important, are not seen as integral to their mandate, but rather sit with other agencies, or other departments within multi-mandate agencies. However, systems that ensure strong co-ordination and coherence across humanitarian, development and peacebuilding divides are not well established, meaning there are few opportunities to plan the integration of conflict transformation and peacebuilding or long-term development work into a humanitarian programming. These challenges are exacerbated by siloed funding streams, with humanitarian, peacebuilding and development activities often being funded from different pots at the donors’ HQs, increasing the difficulty of coordinating action.

Meanwhile, limited longer-term funding makes long term planning, critical to effective development and peacebuilding work, very difficult. As aid budgets are squeezed, due to the financial impact of COVID-19 on donor countries’ economies, this could increase competition for funding between aid organizations. However, this could also be a catalyst for improved coordination and collaboration, not only within aid agencies, but also within and amongst donors themselves. Improved synergies between peacebuilding, development and humanitarian programming could leverage and amplify positive impact in a time of limited donor funding. This, however, requires that a critical mass of individuals at all levels, in both donor and aid agencies, advocate for and seek opportunities to use a nexus approach, not only in programming but also, and perhaps most critically, in how the funding for those programmes is managed.

Finally, the political situation in South Sudan presents major challenges for organizations to increase their coordination and cooperation, in spite of the significant need presented by COVID-19. Due to the delay in appointing State Governors, for example in Upper Nile State at the time of writing, other state, county and payam level appointments have also been delayed, creating uncertainty about focal points with whom agencies could or should be engaging. This has made the coordination between international and national NGOs and state/local authorities around activities at local-level extremely difficult outside of Juba. As a result, effective coordination often depends on the motivation and efforts of individual organizations, national or international, and the presence of subnational task forces or on pre-existing coordination structures. These factors vary highly between the different locations.

The case for strengthening integrated/nexus approaches

Given the circumstances outlined above, there is great need and opportunity to strengthen the nexus in South Sudan. This is perhaps most easily achieved at the subnational and local level, given that it is easier to coordinate fewer actors within a limited geographic area, working on a limited number of issues. Furthermore, achieving peace in South Sudan is dependent on addressing the drivers of conflict at the sub-national, local and community level. Integrating peacebuilding into humanitarian and development projects at this level can therefore support conditions necessary for sustainable peace at the national level. Rooting nexus coordination in local approaches, with local actors taking the lead, would mitigate the risk of the approach being seen as imposed by Western actors, thereby improving the potential for ownership and buy-in by communities themselves.

Finally, strengthening the nexus approach would directly benefit South Sudanese communities and make aid programmes and delivery more attuned to conflict sensitivity. As the South Sudanese are the key stakeholders in any development, humanitarian and peacebuilding activities, and do not live their lives in silos, improving and strengthening the nexus approach would improve the coordination, visibility and expectation management of all projects and programmes. It would also contribute to enhancing community trust of the donors, international and national NGOs as a greater ‘strategy’ for the sustainability of aid delivery is also apparent. Finally, it would recognize that as they work to implement peace, South Sudanese communities are consistently confronted with multi-layered and interrelated problems, and that it is in the aid community’s interest to work to address them in a holistic way that promotes social cohesion and peace.

Recommendations

A few recommendations can be made for implementing actors and donors to strengthen the nexus approach in South Sudan.

• Aid actors and donors should build on existing efforts to fund and develop programmes that work across the humanitarian, development and peacebuilding sectors. As noted above, NNGOs have been using a nexus approach in their programming in South Sudan for many years. Integral to this approach is an in-depth understanding of the context, complemented by a recognition of the overlap between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding objectives. Implementing humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors within a specific geographic area should look for shared goals and programme targets through integrated approaches where possible and strengthen coordination through regularly sharing information and contextual analysis.
• Aid actors and donors should be more intentional in linking shorter-term humanitarian and COVID-19 funding and programmes to their longer-term development and peacebuilding objectives. Long-term strategies are needed to effectively address the underlying causes of crisis and violent conflict in South Sudan. Donors should consider transitioning towards more long-term, flexible and adaptive strategies and funding streams that would cover humanitarian, development and peacebuilding activities, rather than dedicated strategies or funding pots for each. This separation cements a siloed approach and hampers efforts to effectively coordinate longer-term strategies and share learning across humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors.
• Donors and international agencies should more proactively tap into and learn from national NGOs’ experience and knowledge around integrating humanitarian, development and peacebuilding programmes. There is a history of NNGOs and local faith-based actors in South Sudan using a nexus approach. Rather than trying to operationalize the nexus approach in ways that are scalable and adhering to siloed bureaucracies, the international aid system should seek to direct more small-scale, flexible funding to these local agencies, putting them in the driving seat and allowing them to work to their own priorities.
• Donors and their implementing partners should avoid using a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to operationalizing the nexus approach. In South Sudan, thinking around ‘nexus’ approaches should be strongly based on the local context, which will require a bespoke response to that community or geographic area’s need. Basing programme design, as well as implementation, on a thorough, and regularly updated conflict sensitivity analysis and risk matrix, and sharing this analysis with other actors will support actively linking up and coordinating with other actors’ efforts, thereby maximizing the positive outcomes of an aid intervention as a whole.

Photo credit: J P Davidson via flickr