• In cases of complex emergencies and protracted conflict where political settlements break down, the traditional linear models of ‘relief first and development later’ do not work.

Development and humanitarian practitioners have long debated the best approaches to address complex and protracted crises around the world.

The traditional model of sequenced interventions from lifesaving to recovery has proven to be inadequate in a crisis where people simultaneously need immediate humanitarian assistance and support for resilience and coping mechanisms.

The World Humanitarian Summit held in Turkey in May emphasised the need for balancing the humanitarian and development dimensions in countries with a protracted crisis.

At a global level, the Overseas Development Institute has highlighted the fact that humanitarian appeals are now recurrent, with some appeals in their eighth year and people living in forced displacement for up to 17 years.

Conflict and fragility have been identified as one of the biggest bottlenecks to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, across a variety of heterogeneous country contexts. Nearly two-thirds of countries in conflict failed to meet the Millennium Development Goals for reducing poverty by half by 2015.

South Sudan, the youngest nation in the world, is in the midst of a major humanitarian, development and security quagmire. Around 6.1 million people, or nearly half of the total population of the country, are in need of humanitarian assistance.

An estimated 4.8 million persons are “severely food insecure,” with Northern and Western Bahr el Ghazal and Unity States worst hit. Following the fighting that erupted in Juba on July 8, more than 60,000 people have fled to Uganda, Kenya and Sudan.

Nearly 12,800 people have been newly displaced within the country, with many located at UNMISS sites. The stories behind these numbers show the situation has particularly impacted women and children.

Building resilience

In cases of complex emergencies and protracted conflict where political settlements break down and the nature of the conflict gives rise to an uncertain outlook for stability and peace, we find the traditional linear models of “relief first and development later” are not fit for purpose. In South Sudan, we offer two main reasons for championing a balanced approach of inter-related humanitarian and development responses to crisis:

First, the relatively peaceful zones where recovery and stabilisation interventions are possible should be the focus of assistance. This approach will build effective firewalls and prevent a spillover of the conflict into areas that are simultaneously vulnerable yet have managed to remain relatively peaceful.

Building resilience is now central to the way in which the UN is responding to fragility. For example, the South Sudanese agriculture sector, a mainstay of up to 90 per cent of the population in the country, faces constraints to growth including a lack of agricultural tools and equipment, quality seeds and storage capacity to minimise post-harvest losses.

A number of agricultural livelihood initiatives by UNDP in Jonglei, Lakes and Warrap States have helped local farmers cultivate crops despite an unsettled external operating environment.

Given the ongoing rainy season is suitable for planting, the sector needs immediate help. Farming communities in areas like Aweil, in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, for instance, need private sector investments for farming support, including from Sudan.

Seasonal voluntary movements, referred to as “partial community returns,” have been observed even in the midst of protracted conflicts as found in Darfur. If carefully managed, voluntary movements of internally displaced persons can be facilitated in the same vein, for example from Mingakaman to Bor, in order to help impacted communities cultivate and safeguard their produce in an organised manner.