This blog by Eero Wahlstedt[1] is based on a desk review that assesses the degree to which donors and aid agencies have institutionalised conflict sensitivity in their policy and strategy guiding documents. The review is a repeat of the 2020-21 review that mapped out the conflict sensitivity needs of agencies. The blog raises some interesting reflections for practitioners for a meaningful integration of conflict sensitivity on the way aid is delivered in South Sudan.
Introduction
The Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF) conducted a desk review of organisations in South Sudan in April 2024 to better understand its impact and the development of the field of conflict sensitivity (CS). It concentrated on the organisational documents of donor, United Nations, and NGO organisations to assess the degree to which CS has been institutionalised, ten of which responded to the study. Furthermore, the key inter-agency strategies and guiding documents were assessed. This study was a repeat of a review that was done in 2020-21 as part of mapping out needs with potential partners.
The review found that CS has become a widely adopted concept among the majority of partners. Although uniform sets of documents were not available for each partner, it was clear that the concept has permeated into organisational policies and strategies both globally and within South Sudan. Among respondents that had provided documents both in 2020-21 and 2024, there was a growth of 53% in the number of CS domains developed for the study met by organisations. However, similar growth was not found within inter-agency strategies and documents.
Although assessing any organisation’s CS, a concept inherently rooted in practice and interaction, by documentation is always going to be limited in its findings, the growth in the defined indicators among partners is highly encouraging.
Domains and Findings
There is no uniform way of measuring CS, which posed a challenge for in mapping needs and demonstrating impact quantitatively. That is why the CSRF created a set of key domains and sub-domains that were both important and possible to assess from documentation. Introducing these domains here allows us to communicate our findings but also give partners food for thought on what aspects they could develop in their own programming.
Domain 1 was defined as the organisation’s strategy. Within it, the organisation’s commitment to making integrated contributions to peace as part of their activities, their integration of CS across key organisational documents and policies, and the degree to which the organisation strived to address structural inequalities within the aid sector were assessed.
There was variance between the sub-domains with CS being an explicit part of strategies the strongest with 80% of the reviewed organisations meeting this criterium. Indeed, many high-quality CS policies that spanned a number of topics in the project cycle were found, some global, some specific to South Sudan. 70% of partners made contributing to peace through their programs explicit, which is very positive given the diversity of organisations that were predominantly humanitarian rather than peace-building oriented. Commitments to address inequalities within the aid sector through, for example, a strong localisation agenda, was the lowest among the three sub-domains but still met by 60% of responding organisations.
Domain 2 concentrated on analysis, which looked at the degree to which the organisation integrates regular contextual analyses and has processes in place to iteratively improve their understanding of the conflict context.
This domain was the strongest of the five developed with 90% of partners meeting it. However, it was noted that although contextual analysis was almost ubiquitous, their quality and granularity varied, and especially analysis of how the partner and its activities interact with the conflict context was often lacking. This process did not specifically assess to what degree the analysis concretely fed into strategy development, planning, and programming.
Domain 3 focused on the degree to which the partner collaborates with other actors supporting CS approaches. Within it, we enquired about the mechanisms for sharing of CS-related information with others, how they include local perspectives into various stages of their programming, and whether CS is a key consideration in partnerships.
Partners scored highly on the domain overall with 80% of respondents meeting the criteria. Including community feedback in programming and using the cluster system to share information and engage in conversations were commonplace. However, community feedback was often limited to the project implementation period with many important design decisions being made with little engagement. This reflects challenges in the aid sector’s project cycles, but especially when partners grow or extend activities in existing communities, demonstrating responsiveness to local priorities could be improved.
Domain 4 explored the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems of partners and the degree to which they adhere to principles of CS. Specifically, the mainstreaming of CS in the Logframes and/or Results Frameworks, regularly monitoring interactions between the context and the programming, and the M&E processes being carried out in a CS manner were analysed.
This domain was among the most difficult for partners with only 50% of them meeting the criteria for it. Although most partners (80%) could demonstrate that their systems monitor the context and interactions, CS being clearly considered at the Logframe and/or Results Framework level was quite uncommon (40%). Similarly, demonstrating that M&E is conducted in a CS manner was difficult for partners (40%).
Domain 5 regarded institutional resources dedicated to supporting a CS approach. Within it, the degree to which the organisation supports resourcing for CS in programming and institutional capacity, the presence of ‘flexing’ mechanisms to respond to contextual changes, and institutional policies involving the economic and environmental footprints of aid were assessed.
Similarly to Domain 4, the partners struggled to meet or demonstrate adherence to these criteria with only 50% fulfilling the requirements for this domain. Particular issues were found in the considerations of the partner regarding its own footprint whether economically or environmentally. Still, the majority (60%) of the partners demonstrated dedicating funds and resources to improving their CS approach, which is highly encouraging.
Reflections
Some of you may question the validity of looking at CS in documentation to understand to what degree programming in South Sudan is conflict sensitive. We share this doubt. One thing that we noticed is that larger and better funded organisations have better conflict sensitivity integration in their documentation. This does not automatically mean that they are more conflict sensitive in practice. Local organisations with unpredictable funding can hardly to be expected to create complex document structures, yet they may be highly conflict sensitive in their projects with intimate contextual knowledge.
Some of you may also question whether good documents will actually lead to good practices in the future. We also wonder about this. We would love to hear from you on how you have used your organisational documents to improve your conflict sensitivity in practice (or how you never look at .them) to better understand what is and is not useful for you in doing your work better. You can share your perspectives or experience with the CSRF via info@csrf-southsudan.org
However, we also don’t feel that documentation is meaningless. Key strategic documents provide a set of guidelines that help define an organisation’s vision and shared values, help onboard new staff to its mission, and provide standard that organisations can be held accountable against. Policies and toolkits are useful tools for staff when they design projects, problem-solve in the field, and think about how to improve their projects.
We found a multitude of high-quality documents that would be useful for any partner. It would be good practice for larger organisations to support smaller ones, especially their local partners, in developing or improving their documentation. Comparing notes with partners who feel they have good global or local policies and toolkits is also encouraged to create best practices that can be shared with the wider aid community. We remain available to support improving your documentation to make them more conflict sensitive.
We also found that though some words and concepts may be stated in documentation, there is a lack of a concrete and practical strategy and plan to reach it. This applies to terms such as localisation, community engagement, collaboration, and indeed conflict sensitivity itself. As the aid community, we need to ensure that our activities go beyond adhering to buzzwords but translate into concrete action.
Collaboration between organisations, capacity building of staff and downstream partners, and demanding conflict sensitivity to be mainstreamed across all levels are needed. South Sudan is a context where aid has had a mixed past, and improving context-appropriateness of activities and minimising the ways that aid can exacerbate conflicts is necessary if aid is to be relevant in the path to a peaceful and prosperous South Sudan. The Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF), continues to support the aid community in South Sudan through the provision of technical analysis, services and advice with the objective of integrating conflict sensitive principles and practices into programming strategies.
[1] The author is a freelance consultant with extensive experience with the aid sector in South Sudan