10.05.2016 Views

Lessons Learned from South Sudan Protection of Civilian Sites 2013–2016

if_we_leave_0

if_we_leave_0

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Lessons</strong> <strong>Learned</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>Sudan</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Civilian</strong> <strong>Sites</strong> - Managing the Response - 43<br />

and donors alike to ignore historical dynamics role in the<br />

current environment. The many microlevel conflicts in rural<br />

areas are <strong>of</strong>ten closely intertwined with contemporary and<br />

past political and inter-ethnic conflicts.<br />

Conflict zones are complex due to the constantly shifting<br />

dynamics: fluid alliances, multiple warring parties, shifting<br />

front lines and legacies <strong>of</strong> past violence pose significant<br />

challenges to contextual and conflict analysis in <strong>South</strong><br />

<strong>Sudan</strong>. It can therefore not be expected that all staff<br />

members, many <strong>of</strong> them on a short-term contract, become<br />

“experts” in the field. However, as indicated by several<br />

respondents, humanitarian organizations commonly fail to<br />

rely on international experts on <strong>South</strong> <strong>Sudan</strong>, and, more<br />

importantly, national staff who <strong>of</strong>ten have unique insights<br />

into many <strong>of</strong> these complex dynamics (Interview 49). Local<br />

knowledge among civilians is too <strong>of</strong>ten ignored.<br />

Rather than build upon their expertise and strengthen<br />

existing coping mechanisms, parallel systems are created<br />

instead. In cases where international experts are brought<br />

in as consultants or researchers for organizations or<br />

donors, the research and analysis is <strong>of</strong>ten kept internal<br />

and rarely shared with the wider humanitarian community<br />

(Interview 68). One respondent, who has worked for both<br />

UNMISS and an INGO, further argued that expert analysis<br />

rarely influences programming even for those who contract<br />

it (Interview 5). When significant resources are spent<br />

creating and updating immaculately worded policies or<br />

in-depth analysis and research, the recommendations<br />

rarely turn into practice. Organizations <strong>of</strong>ten recycle similar<br />

programmes and research with little advancement as<br />

they are unaware <strong>of</strong> what has already been done, or even<br />

what has already failed. Some actors have even redone<br />

research or failed programmes carried out by their own<br />

organization only a few years earlier due to a complete<br />

lack <strong>of</strong> institutional knowledge.<br />

There is a dependence on a limited number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />

for analysis and understanding, to the point that information<br />

is rarely institutional and shared less between stakeholders.<br />

When key individuals leave or are declared persona non<br />

grata, much <strong>of</strong> the knowledge and contacts are lost. The<br />

limited number <strong>of</strong> country experts means that some are<br />

over relied upon. Although these issues existed before the<br />

crisis began, these weaknesses have been amplified by the<br />

crisis. Institutional memory and contextual analysis are still<br />

lacking between all actors <strong>from</strong> UNMISS to humanitarians.<br />

A family <strong>of</strong> new arrivals make it by truck to the Malakal PoC site with few belongings. © IOM 2015 Photo: Brendan Bannon

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!