This paper summarises the existing literature on livelihoods, basic services and social protection in South Sudan; presents a brief analysis of this literature, its strengths and its gaps; and lays out potential research questions for the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium (SLRC). It provides a brief overview of the country and the impact of the conflict with the North between 1955 and the present. Some 2 million people were killed in the conflict, and twice that many were displaced — either internally or internationally as refugees. These groups have been returning to South Sudan since 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed, making return and reintegration one of the major policy concerns of the new government in Juba. But the war also took a heavy toll on the lives and livelihoods of those who were not displaced, or who were displaced locally.
The legacy of the conflict lives on. Militias, widely believed to be supported by the regime in Khartoum, continue to harass local populations in South Sudan, and recent fighting in the ‘three areas’ — areas close to the border of South Sudan but not within its current border (particularly Abyei and South Kordofan) — has increased tensions with Khartoum and, in some cases, led to refugee crises in border areas.
This report raises several questions for further investigation. There is little evidence for use in policy and programme formulation, and numerous questions around the nature of return and reintegration. With regard to social protection-type programmes, there are fears about returning to an ‘OLS approach’ that is equated with free handouts — and a concern that such approaches can lead to dependency and the undermining of people’s own initiatives to rebuild their livelihoods. Many questions persist about the best way to deal with land access and tenure questions, and about the impact of rapid urbanisation on both rural livelihood systems and the nature of urban life and demands on urban services.
In-depth, longitudinal studies using common approaches and common definitions will be required to delve into these questions more deeply, rather than simply tracking changes in indicators. Impact assessment has been an important gap and, until there are convincing data on what works and what does not, and why, important lessons from programme implementation may not be captured fully. Lastly, the issue of research uptake — the ability to utilise empirical findings in the formulation of policies and programmes — is a constraint that the consortium must address, along with the production of valid and reliable research. A number of more detailed potential research questions are outlined in Annex 1 to the main report.
