Humanitarian access challenges in Sudan are not new. The control or denial of access by conflict actors to further political, military and economic agendas has persisted for at least 40 years, with serious implications for the human toll, as well as the nature of Sudan’s conflicts. The first blog in this two-part series identified lessons from the history of access in Sudan to help aid actors understand the wide-ranging implications of access challenges and approaches. This blog seeks to translate those lessons into recommendations for policy and aid actors engaging in access issues today.
The aid sector’s principles, policies and practices on access must ensure that aid reaches those most in need and does not become a weapon of war. This is critical as the country heads into a catastrophic hunger season, with the potential for mass starvation and the associated impacts on social, political and economic fragility. The scale of the impending disaster is such that international aid will be unable to avert it, even with total access, but we must do more to try to contain it.
These are daunting challenges, but lessons from the past and analysis of the present can help prevent aid (again) being used as a weapon of war, and instead may help to improve the longer-term prospects for Sudan’s people.
Connecting aid’s principles with realities on the ground
The humanitarian experience with the ‘Ground Rules’ of OLS and ‘Principles of Engagement’ of NMPACT suggest that our approaches to developing and using principles must be robust on two levels. First, they must be informed by the political, military, and economic pressures on access, as described in the first blog.[1] Second, they must be simple, understood by all those in the operating environment – including the breadth of Sudanese society – and subject to debate, testing and learning.
The Joint Operating Principles (JOPs) were agreed soon after the outbreak of conflict in 2023. While work has been done to train and share the JOPs with aid actors, government and military actors, this work has not yet included society at large, and there are few safe spaces for debating what the JOPs mean in practice.[2] Such engagement and debate is important for helping aid actors to be transparent and accountable to Sudanese communities, and also enables Sudanese to participate in applying pressure on power structures to allow aid to reach vulnerable populations.
In practice, aid actors could help to make this area of engagement more robust by:
Investments in analysis, planning and prioritising
Strong contextual analysis is the first step toward an effective and conflict-sensitive approach to managing access dilemmas. The military, political and economic implications discussed in the first blog need to be understood not only at the national level, but also within each context where aid is moving, stored, and distributed. This requires dedicated capacities and roles for analysis, and the intentional involvement of diverse perspectives. Area-based approaches currently being explored by the aid sector represent a strong foundation for this but require more deliberate and meaningful inclusion of communities.[3] Improved dialogue with Sudanese civilian communities will improve the quality of analysis, prioritisation and planning – tasks which will become more difficult and sensitive as the hunger season progresses. Specific steps in this direction include:
Negotiations and engagement
Negotiations are necessarily political, requiring understanding different positions, needs and interests on multiple levels. Decisions of who we include in negotiations, what we negotiate for, and how we negotiate shape not only the outcomes of negotiations, but also influence relationships between the parties involved. In the current context, this poses conflict sensitivity challenges and opportunities. Specific considerations or recommendations for managing these include the following:
Communication plans and outreach
Sudan’s history suggests that robust community engagement supports access negotiations by increasing public participation and pressure on armed actors, and improving the quality of the aid response. Moreover, it builds the credibility and acceptance of the aid response as communities are more aware of aid’s intentions and decisions, and also gives them an opportunity to play a critical accountability role. Steps that could be taken in the current context include:
——-
Aid access in Sudan has long been politicised and militarised; these dynamics are woven into the many ways that the aid system interacts with bureaucratic requirements, security, and diplomacy. Sudan’s experiences since the 1980s tell us that approaches to access that do not understand these dynamics risk contributing to the conflict. Our principles, systems and approaches must be capable of understanding the complexity, helping us to make difficult decisions and act on them in a meaningful way.
[1] For more detail on these, please see the first blog in this series. Additional resources are cited in that blog. What can Sudan’s past teach us? – humanitarian access lessons from OLS and NMPACT – CSFSudan (csf-sudan.org)
[2] This should include actors such as commercial transporters moving aid or local responders.
[3] For more on the CSF’s analysis of area-based approaches and the applicability for Sudan, see this blog from October 2023. https://dzo.kei.mybluehost.me/benefits-and-challenges-of-an-area-based-approach-to-programming/