South Sudanis a complex working environment, presenting unique challenges for development programming. This comparative study aimed to assess what lessons could be learned from the recently closed portfolio of projects seeking to strengthen resilience, with a focus on agriculture, food security and livelihoods. This report highlights learning in two categories: modalities of working and activities. A qualitative data collection process was undertaken in April of 2018, from which recommendations are made for future investment. While important lessons have been identified, data was only collected from the relatively stable (former) states of Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Western Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap, and thus cannot be generalized for the entire country.
Many entry-points for building resilience in areas of stability were successfully identified by the implementing partners and have had significant positive impacts. High-impact activities that are recommended to be scaled-up include the packaged support for dry season agriculture, expansion of traction plowing, and improved access to and management of fruit trees and hybrid poultry. These activities have increased agricultural production and income, enabling households to better withstand and overcome shocks. Dry season vegetable production in particular has reduced the ‘hunger gap’ (and in the long term may lessen the need for emergency assistance), introduced new sources of nutrition (and in the long term may reduce child malnutrition), and provided new assets and income for women that have also acted as a means to change gender norms. The farmer field school, input trade fair, and focus on women were ways of working that were effective and supported by communities.
There are important areas where programming and activities can be better. A set of recommendations are made to enhance the existing set of activities, including lessons regarding beneficiary selection, technology selection (best fit over best practice), liaising and aligning with government systems, coordination, flexibility in programming, timing, and pest management. In addition to improving what is done and how it is implemented, there are activities that are recommended to be introduced for all projects. These include: ensuring ‘do no harm’ programming reaches the community level, the use of theories of change to enable learning, introducing downward accountability mechanisms, involving men and boys in areas where their involvement is required (e.g. land, cattle, gender norms), taking a systems
approach to ensure gaps are identified, and having a vision for transition / exit planning.
The Feminist International Assistance Policy was introduced during the funding cycle. Many of the lessons learned will be addressed by mandatory requirements of the new policy (e.g. assessment at baseline, sufficient expertise, on-going consultation, identify challenges and barriers as well as strategies to address them, involve women and girls in monitoring and evaluation). Many of the recommendations provide mechanisms to meet these new requirements. In addition to these changes, this comparative study provides reflections on the complexity of gendered work burdens, insight on the use of gender-based quotas in beneficiary selection, and the strategic involvement of men and boys.
