In high-conflict scenarios, humanitarian needs often surpass resources, and humanitarians are faced with ongoing challenges of whom to prioritise and where to work. This process is often referred to as ‘targeting’, but this article uses the concept of ‘triage’ to emphasise how prioritisation is a continuous and political process, rather than a one-off exercise to find the best match between needs and programme objectives. This study focused on South Sudan, exploring the formal and informal dynamics at the national, regional and local levels of humanitarian decisions. The article is based on semi-structured interviews and multiple meetings and observations of programmes over four months of fieldwork in 2017. This fieldwork was beset by many of the problems that humanitarians also encounter in their work, including complicated access, logistics difficulties and security challenges. Humanitarian action is meant to be flexibly deployed to respond to priority needs resulting from conflict or disasters, and agencies have multiple tools and policies to facilitate this. However, in reality, we find humanitarian action largely locked into path-dependent areas of intervention because agencies must rely on logistics, trust and local partners, all of which take years to develop, and because local actors’ commitment to see programmes continued.
repository
Continue to search the repository
You might also like
Some Infos
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor.
Pages
- About Our County Profiles
- Blog
- Case Studies Grid
- Central Equatoria
- Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility South Sudan
- Contact Us
- Contribute a Repository Article
- County Profile HTML links
- County Profiles
- COVID-19 HUB
- Covid-19 information page
- CSRF About Us
- CSRF Helpdesk
- CSRF Helpdesk Form
- CSRF Login
- Dashboard
- Deliverables
- Demo
- Events
- Forgot password
- Guides, Tools and Checklists
- Helpdesk
- Home
- Latest
- Looker Studio
- Subscribe