Conflict Sensitivy Reports - South Sudan

[John Ashworth]

1. Borderlands of Resilience – Navigating Conflict Impacts on
Communities and Aid on the Sudan-South Sudan Frontier [report
attached]

Chris Milner, Joseph Majok and Machien Luoi, CSRF, April 24, 2026

This report examines how the war in Sudan, and especially the RSF
consolidation in Kordofan, is reshaping South Sudan’s borderlands.
Recent developments have increased South Sudan’s leverage across the
frontier and, for the time being, reduced cross-border conflict. At
the same time, they have impoverished communities, deepened
militarisation, and strengthened elite control over trade and land.
These dynamics are driving greater everyday insecurity, including
sexual and gender-based violence, fueling conflict over internal
borders, and laying the foundations for future local and strategic
confrontation. Women are bearing the heaviest burden, both because
they absorb the economic costs of war and because militarisation is
reinforcing systems that limit representation, weaken accountability,
and restrict access to justice. Drawing on primary research in
Northern Bahr al Ghazal, Unity State and Ruweng Administrative Area,
the analysis suggests key implications and recommendations for aid
actors, requiring a fundamental shift in approach.

https://csrf-southsudan.org/repository/csrf-analysis-borderlands-of-resilience-navigating-conflict-impacts-on-communities-and-aid-on-the-sudan-south-sudan-frontier/

END1

2. When aid disappears – Lessons from South Sudanese mutual aid
[report attached]

Luka Biong Deng, Elizabeth Nyibol, Richard Okidi and CSRF, April 28, 2026

This research piece examines South Sudanese mutual aid against the
backdrop of shrinking international funding for humanitarian aid to
the country and its communities. As there is only limited
documentation of such initiatives in South Sudan, the main objective
of this research was to assess the presence of mutual aid in the
country. Mutual aid, defined in terms of its common characteristics
that include volunteerism, spontaneity, flexibility, the sharing of
resources, reciprocity and solidarity, manifests in approaches that
are less structured, but demand-driven and community-led. This report
reveals a robust, deeply rooted ecosystem of community-led responses,
which not only provide the first line of response to crises but also
serve as one of the most important elements of the humanitarian crisis
response chain, with women and youth playing prominent roles. Examples
of these community-led responses are related to (i) flood and
environmental crises mitigation, (ii) food security and
resource-sharing mechanisms, (iii) peacebuilding, social cohesion and
conflict mitigation efforts, (iv) local women- and youth-led
resilience community structures, (v) traditional justice, cultural
safety nets and indigenous institutions and (vi) community-based
emergency rescue and humanitarian support. One key recommendation to
come out of this research is for the South Sudan government to adopt
national policy that acknowledges and recognises these mutual aid
initiatives, as well as providing policy guidance to formal aid actors
to forge supportive partnerships with mutual aid groups.

https://csrf-southsudan.org/repository/csrf-research-when-aid-disappears-lessons-from-south-sudanese-mutual-aid/

END2

3. From humanitarian response to conservation investment: whose
conservation, whose development in South Sudan?

Emmanuel Louis and CSRF, April 27, 2026

This blog by Emmanuel Louis, discusses conflict-sensitivity
considerations for sequencing conservation investments in South Sudan
amid widespread humanitarian needs. While humanitarian aid has been
essential in sustaining lives and supporting communities in the
context of prolonged instability, there is a growing shift among
donors and policymakers towards longer-term priorities, including
environmental governance and conservation investment. The blog,
against this backdrop, contends that aligning conservation with
ongoing efforts to support livelihoods, protection, and basic services
is essential to safeguarding its legitimacy and local acceptance.
Moreover, the blog discusses requirements to benefit-sharing
mechanisms and the responsiveness of conservation initiatives and
makes multiple recommendations for conflict sensitive and
well-sequenced programming.

Introduction

South Sudan is entering a critical phase in its development
trajectory. For over a decade, humanitarian response has been central
to how needs have been addressed — through food assistance, protection
services, emergency health provision, and crisis coordination systems.
These interventions have been essential in sustaining lives and
supporting communities in the context of prolonged instability. There
is now a growing shift among donors and policymakers towards
longer-term priorities, including environmental governance and
conservation investment. This reflects a broader effort to diversify
economic pathways, strengthen natural resource management, and
gradually reduce structural reliance on emergency assistance.

South Sudan’s ecosystems — from wetlands and forests to savannahs and
migratory corridors — are of global ecological significance. Managed
inclusively, they hold potential for climate finance, biodiversity
conservation, and locally grounded economic opportunities. However,
while the rationale for this shift is widely framed in technical and
global policy terms, transitions of this nature are often felt at
community level, where access to land and natural resources is closely
tied to identity, livelihoods, and social relations. In contexts
affected by conflict and fragility, how interventions are introduced —
and whose priorities they reflect — fundamentally shapes how they are
received. As conservation investment gains traction, the key question
is not only whether it is needed, but how it can be implemented in
ways that support both environmental sustainability and social
cohesion.

For instance, land in South Sudan is not simply an environmental
asset, it is deeply embedded in systems of authority, belonging, and
historical experience. Customary and statutory frameworks coexist,
often creating ambiguity around ownership, access, and
decision-making. Legacies of displacement, return, and localised
tensions further shape how land-related interventions are interpreted.

In this context, conservation initiatives inevitably intersect with
governance dynamics and community relations. A conflict-sensitive
approach therefore requires more than an ecological assessment. It
demands an understanding of who holds influence, who is excluded, and
how different groups are likely to experience intervention in
practice. This is not an obstacle to conservation investment, but a
foundation for ensuring legitimacy and sustainability.[1]

A people-centred approach to conservation

Across South Sudan, communities have long engaged in environmental
stewardship through pastoralism, fishing, and forest-based
livelihoods. These systems are grounded in local knowledge and
adaptive practices shaped by seasonal and ecological realities. A
people-centred approach to conservation builds on these foundations.
It moves beyond consultation towards meaningful participation in
decision-making and implementation. This includes ensuring that women
and men, boys and girls, and marginalised groups are not only
consulted, but are engaged in shaping priorities and influencing
outcomes.

Where communities are engaged as partners, conservation initiatives
are more likely to reflect local realities and gain legitimacy. Where
they are perceived as externally driven, they risk reinforcing
mistrust, exclusion, or passive compliance without ownership. [2]

Applying a ‘Do No Harm’ lens

For many households, access to land, mobility, and natural resources
is central to livelihoods and coping strategies. Grazing routes, water
points, and fishing and hunting areas remain critical, particularly
under conditions of climatic stress and seasonal pressure.
Conservation measures — including zoning, protected areas, or access
restrictions — therefore carry significant social implications.
Without careful design, they may unintentionally disrupt livelihood
systems or heighten tensions between groups competing over scarce
resources.[3]

A conflict-sensitive approach involves:

- aligning conservation initiatives with livelihood support systems
- integrating protection and context analysis into programme design
- monitoring community perceptions and emerging risks
- sequencing interventions so that viable alternatives exist before
restrictions are introduced
- establishing effective community engagement, with clear messaging,
complete feedback loops and problem-solving

Environmental objectives and human wellbeing are closely
interconnected, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected
settings.

Equity and benefit-sharing

How benefits are distributed plays a central role in shaping
perceptions of conservation. Opportunities linked to conservation —
such as employment, compensation schemes, or infrastructure
development — can contribute to local economies. However, the critical
issue is not only who benefits, but who controls the revenue streams
that generate those benefits.

In South Sudan’s fragmented governance context, these flows are often
mediated between state institutions, private actors, NGOs, and
community-level authorities, with uneven transparency and lack of
accountability. This creates a layered system of control in which
formal state structures, customary authorities, and external actors
may simultaneously influence resource allocation. Within this
landscape, ‘community’ is not a single or uniform actor. Access to
land and resources is shaped by clan systems, customary governance,
and local power hierarchies, which vary significantly across contexts.
Gender and age further structure these relations, with women and youth
often positioned farther decision-making, despite their central role
in livelihood systems and resource use.[4]

As a result, perceptions of fairness are shaped less by the existence
of benefit-sharing mechanisms, and more by the legitimacy and
transparency of those who design and control them. Where these systems
are externally driven or insufficiently accountable, they risk
reinforcing existing inequalities and deepening contestation over both
access and authority. Equity, therefore, is not only a matter of
fairness, but rather it is central to trust, legitimacy, and social
cohesion.[5]

Accountability and responsiveness

Access to clear and timely information remains a challenge in many
areas, where misunderstandings can escalate quickly and shape
perceptions of exclusion or unfairness. Establishing accessible
feedback and grievance mechanisms allows communities to raise concerns
and influence programme adjustments. This supports more adaptive
programming, enabling interventions to respond to changing dynamics on
the ground. Setting up responsive conservation programmes is a key
element in building trust between communities, implementing
organisations, and authorities.

Conservation amidst a context of humanitarian needs

While the shift towards conservation investment reflects an important
policy evolution, humanitarian needs remain significant across South
Sudan. Food insecurity, displacement, and protection risks continue to
affect many communities, and humanitarian assistance therefore remains
a critical component of the overall response landscape. Conservation
initiatives need to be carefully sequenced and contextualised within
these realities. Where environmental investments are perceived as
disconnected from immediate survival needs, they may face resistance.
Therefore, aligning conservation with ongoing efforts to support
livelihoods, protection, and basic services is essential. For example,
while hunting wildlife is illegal in South Sudan, communities that
live in and around the wildlife conservation areas may rely on
wildlife for food and other livelihood needs.

Conservation as a peacebuilding opportunity

Environmental governance can contribute to broader peacebuilding
processes where it creates space for dialogue, cooperation, and shared
decision-making over land and natural resources. When designed
inclusively, conservation initiatives can strengthen local governance
processes and encourage collective stewardship, promoting
sustainability and social cohesion at the same time. However,
conservation is not inherently stabilising: it can also become a
source of tension where it intersects poorly with existing power
dynamics, historical grievances, and unequal access to resources under
the language of progress.

In such contexts, how conservation projects are designed and embedded
within local realities includes considering how priorities are set,
how resources are controlled, how conflicts are identified and
addressed, and whose voices shape decision-making at different levels.
Conservation in South Sudan can therefore either support peacebuilding
or unintentionally reproduce drivers of conflict — depending on how it
engages with context, legitimacy, and local agency.

Recommendations

To support more conflict-sensitive and inclusive conservation
investment in South Sudan, the following considerations are relevant
for policymakers, donors, and practitioners:

-mPrioritise cultivating a good understanding of the context in which
conservation in South Sudan is. Integrating proper knowledge of the
political, social, and conflict situation of the different
conservation areas in South Sudan in any conservation planning will go
a long way in ensuring that problems are identified and the right
actors are engaged through the various conservation interventions.
- Strengthen inclusive participation: Ensure meaningful involvement of
women, youth, men and marginalised groups in decision-making,
including co-management structures and problem identification and
resolution mechanisms.
- Promote equitable benefit-sharing: Establish transparent mechanisms
that are understood and perceived as fair across different groups.
- Design interventions carefully, in ways that align them with
livelihood support systems and community priorities, particularly
where basic needs remain acute. Ensure that conservation initiatives
are aware of and sensitive to other short- and long-term forms of
assistance programming.
- Link conservation to peacebuilding: Recognise environmental
governance as part of broader efforts to strengthen social cohesion
and conflict sensitivity. Become aware that tensions, perceptions and
conflict will arise in the way conservation interacts with other
factors, and ensure that conflict resolution and conflict sensitivity
are embedded and budgeted for in any conservation investments.
- Invest in accountability mechanisms: Support accessible feedback and
grievance systems that enable adaptive programming. Ensure that
monitoring and reporting of conservation outcomes is also made
meaningful to the conservation communities.

The recent increase in conservation investment presents important
opportunities for South Sudan. However, its success will depend on
whether it is inclusive, context-aware, and responsive to lived
realities. In fragile contexts, questions of whose conservation and
whose development are not abstract. They shape how change is
experienced — and whether it can be sustained.

———————————————-

[1] See more global lessons on conflict-sensitive conservation from
the Global Environment Facility (GEF): Bruch, C. et al. (ed.) (2023):
Conflict-Sensitive Conservation: Lessons from the Global Environment
Facility. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003351399.

[2] This inclusion of communities into conservation-related decision
making in South Sudan is closely examined for the case of the Kidepo
Game Reserve in this 2025 CSRF analysis:
https://csrf-southsudan.org/repository/csrf-analysis-conservation-with-the-people-considering-local-communities-perspectives/.

[3] This was prominently recognised with the adoption of IUCN motion
57 on conflict-sensitive conservation in 2025:
https://csrf-southsudan.org/including-peace-in-conservation-conflict-sensitivity-at-the-world-conservation-congress-and-lessons-from-south-sudan/.

[4] A recently published CSRF analysis, in collaboration with the
Likikiri Collective, highlights the important role of youth in South
Sudan’s ‘Green Transition’:
https://csrf-southsudan.org/repository/csrf-analysis-its-like-a-war-of-liberation-youth-and-the-green-transition-in-juba-south-sudan/.

[5] CSRF research in 2025 highlighted how shared benefits from
conservation efforts are too often negotiated in transactional terms,
causing limited success in South Sudan. In conclusion, the report
calls for a more collaborative approach:
https://csrf-southsudan.org/repository/csrf-analysis-conservation-with-the-people-considering-local-communities-perspectives/.

https://csrf-southsudan.org/from-humanitarian-response-to-conservation-investment-whose-conservation-whose-development-in-south-sudan/

END3
______________________
John Ashworth

ashwor...@gmail.com

+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile, WhatsApp and Signal)

PO Box 403 - 00206, Kiserian, Kenya