Path dependency when prioritising disaster and humanitarian response under high levels of conflict: a qualitative case study in South Sudan

In high-conflict scenarios, humanitarian needs often surpass resources, and humanitarians are faced with ongoing challenges of whom to prioritise and where to work. This process is often referred to as ‘targeting’, but this article uses the concept of ‘triage’ to emphasise how prioritisation is a continuous and political process, rather than a one-off exercise to find the best match between needs and programme objectives. This study focused on South Sudan, exploring the formal and informal dynamics at the national, regional and local levels of humanitarian decisions. The article is based on semi-structured interviews and multiple meetings and observations of programmes over four months of fieldwork in 2017. This fieldwork was beset by many of the problems that humanitarians also encounter in their work, including complicated access, logistics difficulties and security challenges. Humanitarian action is meant to be flexibly deployed to respond to priority needs resulting from conflict or disasters, and agencies have multiple tools and policies to facilitate this. However, in reality, we find humanitarian action largely locked into path-dependent areas of intervention because agencies must rely on logistics, trust and local partners, all of which take years to develop, and because local actors’ commitment to see programmes continued.

Faith in localisation? The experiences of local faith actors engaging with the international humanitarian system in South Sudan

Localisation, as it aims to shift power in the humanitarian system, will involve the increased inclusion of local faith actors, those national and local faith-affiliated groups and organisations that are often first, and last, responders in crises and have been responding in humanitarian contexts for many years, but often in parallel to humanitarian coordination mechanisms. In primary research in South Sudan with local faith actors and international humanitarian actors, this article aims to examine the inroads and barriers to local faith actor involvement in the humanitarian system and the realisation of localisation with local actors such as these. The research is based on an ethnographic study in which researchers were imbedded in a humanitarian project that aimed to help bridge divides between local faith actors and the international humanitarian system. The findings are based on one-on-one and group interviews with 89 participants from a range of international and local, and faith and secular, organisations. Findings indicate that local faith actors are active in responding to crises and want to be linked to the humanitarian system, but they feel distanced from it and pigeonholed as local faith actors. Formalisation through the appropriate registration systems and then training and networking with the humanitarian system helped them build legitimacy and feel confident to participate in humanitarian coordination. International humanitarian actors can help bridge barriers by understanding and connecting with the local faith actors and challenging their own assumptions about who local faith actors are.

Conclusion: Japan’s Search for a New Direction in Peacekeeping

First, this chapter will briefly review the contents of each previous chapter. Chapter 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_2 examined the historical background from the immediate aftermath of World War II to the establishment of the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) Act in 1992. Chapter 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_3 considered the evolution of Japan’s peacekeeping policy under the PKO Act from 1992 to 2012. Chapter 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_4 investigated the transformation of Japan’s peacekeeping policy under the second Abe administration, especially during the period from 2013 to 2017. Chapters 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_5, 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_6, 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_7, and 10.1007/978-3-030-88509-0_8 considered the cases of Cambodia, East Timor, Haiti, and South Sudan respectively. Second, this chapter will analyze the consequences of Japan’s pursuit of the trends of “robustness” and “integration.” Third, we will consider possible explanations behind the withdrawal of the Japan Engineering Groups from South Sudan in 2017. Fourth, we will demonstrate that troop deployment to the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs) has become commonly difficult for the Global North countries, causing a shift in focus away from personnel contributions to more material UNPKO commitments. Fourth, this chapter will illustrate how the Global North is still trying to make personnel contributions to UNPKOs wherever possible. Lastly, we will discuss what Japan can do from now on in its peacekeeping policy, or more broadly its International Peace Cooperation commitment.