Leadership and Governance, Financing, and Coordination and their Impact on the Operationalization of Health Interventions in the Humanitarian-Development Nexus in South Sudan

Study Design and Setting

We conducted a qualitative case study, drawing from document reviews and individual and group key informant interviews (KIIs). South Sudan was identified as a country case based on MOMENTUM’s operational presence as a development actor working in the nexus on RMNCAH programming along with country office capacity. Research was conducted in Juba County of Central Equatoria state and Bor South County of Jonglei state (Figure 2, adapted from OntheWorldMap.com) (27). Juba serves as both the capital and diplomatic center of South Sudan and Bor Town is in Bor South County and is the capital of Jonglei State (28,29). Bor has experienced violence before and after independence (30). The area around Bor is primarily agricultural, producing grains and supporting livestock (28,31). Jonglei state is prone to heavy rainfall and seasonal flooding each year and has experienced ongoing food insecurity since 2016 (32,33).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2. Map of South Sudan and Neighboring Countries

Data Collection

Analysis

Content analysis methods were used to analyze interview transcripts, which entailed coding transcripts for specific themes, concepts, and terms (35,41). The software Dedoose was used for coding and analysis (42). An analytical codebook was developed through a deductive process where codes were based on the study aims, the conceptual framework, and the interview guide (34,43). The codebook was then refined through an inductive approach following the initial coding phase of select transcripts, particularly those that offered the most nuanced perspectives (36). The coding process remained iterative to ensure researchers captured the subtleties across transcripts and allowed for a significant degree of flexibility, along with room for novel insights.

Document review and primary qualitative research findings were analyzed separately at distinct phases of the research. These findings were synthesized by organizing findings from both data sources into distinct thematic areas that were to be included in the research. Data were also used to substantiate, or at times contradict, information provided by key informants. Information from documents and key informants were triangulated to provide a more complete understanding of the situation and to ensure credibility, dependability, and areas of significance for research purposes (35).

Ethics

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health determined this project “Not Human Subjects Research” as defined by DHHS regulations 45 CFR 46.102 and, therefore, does not require institutional review board oversight. All participants provided consent prior to interviews conducted.

Two Overarching Themes in the Nexus

Three Fundamental Components of the Nexus: Leadership & Governance, Financing, and Coordination

Leadership & Governance in the Health Sector—who’s in charge here?

Engagement with the South Sudanese government by humanitarian and development actors is complicated given the indirect consequences of targeted sanctions on the health sector, particularly with the MoH. Nearly all interviewees identified this as a significant barrier that impacted humanitarian and development actors differently due to their respective mandates. Among humanitarian actors interviewed, there was a consensus that working directly with the government amidst sanctions could compromise their commitment to the humanitarian principles, particularly independence, impartiality, and neutrality (47). Although many development actors interviewed confirmed their commitment to these principles, their engagement was less restricted given expectations to engage with the government for development activities. Despite the desire of most actors, especially humanitarians, to uphold these principles, this lack of direct engagement was criticized as an attempt to bypass government, as one development actor illustrated:“We are also working in a context in which there is a history of exclusion. […] So, you have a situation in which IPs (implementing partners) are working in communities and the government don’t even have a clue what’s going on […] that pointed to a level of resentment and discontent on the part of state government that IPs come in, bypass them and start talking to communities.”—Development Actor (I6)

The government was considered to have limited ownership of the health sector, as humanitarian and development health assistance was predominantly managed by international actors. This created a parallel leadership structure, with the MoH’s role considered more symbolic by some interviewed due to its pronounced reliance on international assistance. Consequently, there appeared to be greater autonomy and decision-making by international actors relative to their MoH counterparts, which raised concerns around the power dynamic among stakeholders. One respondent attributed this differential to the limited capacity of the government, further exacerbating dependence on external actors and limiting the sustainability of health services:“The missing part is government capacity because whatever you do, the endgame [is] to exit. That’s the endgame, so the community, government will take over. Without active government, it is [impossible]— Dual-Mandate NGO (I7)

Sustainability concerns were heightened in light of the immense development funding changes in 2022-2023, with over 220 of 797 health facilities covered by the HPF closed across eight states, the majority of which provided RMNCAH services (48). These closures were dramatic and sudden, and most interviewees reported fears around the potential impact on health outcomes in the short- and long-term. Despite agreement by the government to take over these facilities and transition plans in place for this to occur, the donors interviewed confirmed that this did not occur, as the government did not cover these facilities following handover. Since the research was conducted, a consolidated multi-donor trust fund was announced to replace the two separate health development projects, as will be outlined later in this paper. A number of barriers to this transition were identified, including limited annual investment by the government in the country’s health budget with donors continuing to subsidize a significant portion of health services. Other factors mentioned included a lack of political will by the government to uphold takeover commitments, and more broadly, global funding shortages due to concurrent crises such as those in Ukraine and Afghanistan.

A Decentralized Health System on Paper—a top-heavy one in practice

National health policies reviewed in this study outline a decentralized health system under the general oversight of the MoH, with decision-making authority and prioritization of health services occurring at the sub-national level (state, county payam, boma) (19,49–53). While this was the case in theory, multiple respondents voiced frustration that most decision-making occurred at the capital (Juba) or headquarter (international) levels by government or international organizations, and did not always align with health needs identified at state or county levels. This discrepancy was attributed to a variety of factors, including concerns around the politicization of aid, nepotism, and cronyism by government officials. Other respondents pointed to an internationally led, top-heavy response as the reason for the inability for decentralization to successfully work, with donors, UN agencies, and INGOs at the helm, essentially perpetuating this top-down approach. The concentration of decision-making power and oversight by so many actors at the top of the hierarchy relative to the field level where services were being delivered raised concerns around the efficiency and sustainability of health interventions. Interviewees at the state level conveyed concerns with relying on subjective decision-making in determining which facilities to support., such as using personal relationships to drive these decisions rather than relying on objective criteria (e.g., population density levels, needs assessments, etc.). Respondents cited that such subjective criteria perpetuated inequities in the health system across different states and continued to undermine sub-national leadership. Both international humanitarian and development actors interviewed discussed the challenges they faced in the absence of a fully functional MoH and health system, with one respondent stressing the impact of such limitations on sustainable development:“That’s our responsibility being superimposed within a weak system and within a scenario where we are simply providing basic services […] So the healthcare system is not functioning as a system that can sustain development in a meaningful way."—UN Agency (I14)

In these same discussions, the localization agenda was raised as a vital element for sustainability. With the bulk of service delivery led by international stakeholders, actors at the local level, including LNGOs and community groups, perceived themselves to be situated at the bottom of the hierarchies in place. LNGOs interviewed described this dynamic and blamed the endless series of “capacity building” initiatives imposed on them by international partners, with local actors not considered capacitated enough to lead at a certain point, even at the local level. One respondent captures this frustration:“Generally, in South Sudan, there’s only one word they are talking about and that’s that national NGOs doesn’t have ‘capacity.’ This has been for more than 25 years […] Okay, but even international NGOs have been here more than 30 years, so they’re even unable to build a capacity for the national. Because one of their roles is to build the capacity of the national. You look at this period and up to now, you’re saying this person, this organization has no capacity. Now whose mistake is here, right?”—I18, National NGO

In summary, various factors in South Sudan have led to international actors taking the lead in the health sector and limited government leadership, and decision-making power. The lack of government involvement and capacity along with limited political will and restricted to engagement (e.g., sanctions) have created gaps in the sustainability of health services and limitations in the feasibility of transitions from international actors to the government, as evidenced by facility closures following HPF handover in 2022-2023. The sustainability of health programming in South Sudan has also been raised in close connection with localization efforts to strengthen the capacity of local actors in order to take over the delivery of health services, with hierarchies between international and local stakeholders hindering these efforts.

Major Development Funding Drawdowns—perpetuating humanitarian needs

The period of research coincided with significant changes in health development funding, including the drawdown of HPF funding by donors and the inability of the government to fulfill their commitments to takeover, resulting in the closure of 220 health facilities (as mentioned above), and the transfer of coverage of one additional state from the HPF to the World Bank. The split of development programs among states between the HPF and World Bank has created a discrepancy in health service provision. Differences were suggested in terms of the comprehensiveness of health services offered and the quality of services provided. While the reasons for this discrepancy were less clear, there was speculation among some respondents that more secure financial resources from the World Bank enabled more comprehensive services and enhanced quality relative to the HPF. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross (historically considered a humanitarian actor) is one of the largest implementing partners of the World Bank in South Sudan and operates outside of the traditional humanitarian coordination architecture given its official observer status granted by the UN (54). Despite this, the operational environment for the three World Bank-coverage areas in 2023 (Unity, Jonglei, and Upper Nile states) were also more volatile, insecure, and conflict-affected relative to those under the HPF (55). Despite both of these funds being classified as health development funds, the majority of services covered under each were almost identical to those funded by humanitarian actors, and in turn, resembled humanitarian funding but over a longer-term period given the basic, lifesaving nature of services and fragility of the health system.

The combined impact of shrinking development funds and increased humanitarian needs between 2022 and 2023 prompted more humanitarian actors to fill substantial gaps in the health system. An example of this coverage includes the South Sudan Humanitarian Fund managed by the UN Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs, which is intended for short-term coverage of acute, lifesaving humanitarian needs based on the Humanitarian Response Plan. In 2022, this Humanitarian Fund was brought into the fold to support health interventions previously covered by development health donors. This turn of events has somewhat forced humanitarian and development donors to coordinate efforts to determine how best to use available resources efficiently (as will be discussed in the coordination section). One donor illustrates the significant impact of funding drawdowns on transition planning between humanitarian and development assistance and on the continuity of health services:“We were also trying to understand sort of transitions and phase out of certain [donors] so we’ve seen multiple conversations we’ve heard people saying, ‘Oh, funding’s cut. That’s it, we’re done’ […] So just in terms of thinking how some of those services continue when a lot of service actors are phasing out, and how donors are also thinking about this? […] If it’s at a facility level and also large scale. Honestly, it’s a nightmare.”—Donor (I21)

Efforts to Integrate Flexible and Cross-Cutting Humanitarian and Development Funding—more predictability and clarity needed

Both humanitarian and development assistance in South Sudan integrated some form of flexible funding for rapid-onset emergencies, particularly recurrent flooding, food insecurity, and mass displacements. Such flexible funding allowed for the adaptation of programming and scale-up in order to meet the needs among affected communities to these common shocks and stresses. However, it was difficult for development actors interviewed to respond to the numerous and diverse emergencies, as the instability and unpredictability of these emergencies often required them to halt their operations given these events extended beyond their development mandate. In these instances, some confirmed that they simply withdrew as it was expected that humanitarian actors would take over service delivery in these regions given their mandate and ability to rapidly mobilize resources, as one development NGO notes:“We could say because when people were displaced, the other actors, the humanitarian actors, they were able to access those places […] Like I said, because of our [development] nature, we were not able to adjust and apply for humanitarian funding for us to access those places.”—Development NGO (I5)

The ability of development actors to provide humanitarian assistance according to changes in the context was described as a challenging and rocky process that was complicated, as the scale of integrated funding for emergencies has differed depending on the source of funding. For example, in the case of the World Bank and its existing health systems strengthening programs, two different forms of emergency funding can be triggered including the Contingent Emergency Response Component and the Crisis Response Window. The former was used to disburse USD 40 million in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, flooding, and Ebola in target locations, including Upper Nile and Jonglei States and the Pibor and Ruweng Administrative Areas. In comparison, it was observed that the HPF Emergency Preparedness & Response Fund annual envelope amounted to less than 1% (roughly 0.33%) of its entire funding envelope for the year (USD 200,000 from a total of USD 60 million) for all seven states of coverage. Other contingency funds were mobilized at the onset of emergencies according to humanitarian actors interviewed, including the Rapid Response Fund and Emergency Rapid Response Mechanism, which essentially allowed these actors to respond to a crisis within a crisis (56,57). Some, though not all, respondents noted these humanitarian-sourced funds were triggered more expediently as they were expressly earmarked for this purpose. However, there appeared to be less clarity on how well coordinated these funds were in terms of ensuring efficiency and complementarity with existing health programs, while preventing duplication and overlap amongst humanitarian actors themselves, as well as between humanitarian and development actors.

A Fragmented Coordination Landscape—insufficient coordination between development and humanitarian actors

A large number of diverse humanitarian and development health organizations operate in South Sudan. In the health sector, at least 111 health agencies (besides the MoH) were identified according to mapping efforts for 2023, including 6 UN agencies, 11 donors, 57 national NGOs, 31 INGOs, and 2 agencies with observer status (i.e., ICRC and MSF) (58). While numerous coordination platforms existed among the humanitarian actors and fewer, but equally important coordination mechanisms were in place for the development players, there were limited platforms for humanitarian and development actors to coordinate together. Table 2 provides a list of these major coordination bodies. It is important to note that the RH coordination forum was the only topic specific coordination mechanism examined in this paper, as the parent study focused on RMNCAH. For this reason, other fora (outside of the Health Cluster) were not explored, such as HIV/TB, disease surveillance, etc.

Most respondents referenced some fragmentation between development and humanitarian actors, with one major donor citing this as the “name of the game here” in South Sudan. Though there were distinct and separate coordination fora for humanitarian and development actors, these were often attended by the same individuals or organizations given many identified themselves as multi-mandate. The humanitarian coordination mechanism has formally been in place primarily through national and sub-national clusters given the explicit coordination mandate for humanitarian response. Much of this coordination has been guided by the annual Humanitarian Response Plan, which includes concrete programmatic and financial targets by geographic area. Despite this planning and forecasting of needs, there was speculation among donors and implementing agencies interviewed that there was still some duplication in both humanitarian and development assistance given the concentration of actors often operating in the same geographic areas. In terms of coordination for development actors, this was less formalized with meetings occurring on a more ad hoc basis.

Although the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework for South Sudan (2023–2025) outlines development targets and financial resources needed, this document was not referenced as a guide by any development actors interviewed in the same way the Humanitarian Response Plan was used as the overarching framework for humanitarians. Furthermore, the coordination for development was not donor-mandated, unlike humanitarian coordination, according to those interviewed from the development sector, but rather encouraged, particularly at the community level. However, the intense competitive environment of securing contracts by development actors was cited as a major barrier to effective coordination. Given the recent development health cuts, there appeared to be more explicit efforts to coordinate between development donors.

Due to changes in development funding and the enhanced role of humanitarian donors to address these gaps, broader nexus coordination efforts were also organized in 2022 by bilateral donors, such as Germany, in order to bring together humanitarian and development agencies. Although less formal, it appeared these meetings were to be planned on a more regular basis. A more high-level HDN coordination body was also in place, which brought together major international actors, though this body did not entail any joint mapping efforts by humanitarian and development actors in terms of charting activities implemented in each area of operation. Additionally, the UN Deputy Secretary General/Resident Coordinator/ Humanitarian Coordinator had taken strides to bring together humanitarian, development, and peace actors building on the existing Partnership for Peace, Resilience, and Recovery initiative, which was revamped in 2022 (59). Although this relaunch was still in its infancy at the time of our interviews, both humanitarian and development actors who referenced this initiative identified it as a potential facilitator of enhanced cooperation between actors across the nexus. Among respondents, however, there was not a clear picture on the extent of funding and political commitment for this effort.

Health Coordination and Gaps in Data Sharing, Decision-Making, and Prioritization of Assistance

Respondents cited flooding, COVID-19, and the potential Ebola outbreak, among others, as key inflection points in the coordination of health services in South Sudan, challenging both humanitarian and development actors’ ability to coordinate more effectively, specifically in terms of preparedness, planning, and implementation. Although numerous coordination health meetings took place at the national level, these were cited as information-sharing in nature, rather than action-oriented or rooted in decision-making. Coordination at the state and county levels was focused on health services (primarily technical in nature), but there were concerns relayed around how much these platforms were taken into account when decisions were made at the national level. There was also less clarity in how services were coordinated and prioritized in areas that were deemed more stable relative to highly fragile regions that required more resources and immediate attention. A small number of participants shared examples of how such fragility considerations informed resilience programming, especially in areas primed for early recovery and longer-term development assistance.

There were also major challenges in coordination at the state and county levels reported as it pertained to data availability and sharing, with interviewees referencing delayed or incomplete reporting due to the limited capacity, availability, and motivation of MoH staff. Reasons cited for this included MoH staff not being paid sufficiently or regularly relative to health cadre employed by international actors. Other challenges included limited internet connectivity and access barriers in remote field locations, particularly during major displacements and flooding. A lack of infrastructure and accountability mechanisms and reluctance by actors to share health information were also referenced, with one respondent from the private sector attributing this to a fear of repercussion by the government:“It’s nothing other than this reluctance of sharing information…[Reluctance] across the board, data-sharing in general. There’s no malice behind it. It’s just there’s not this thought behind the importance of transparency or visibility into what everyone is doing for fear of repercussions.” —I11, Private Sector

Together, these factors impacted the quality and comprehensiveness of data available and hindered the ability to access timely health information among both humanitarian and development actors, thus limiting effective coordination, decision-making, and prioritization of health needs. This phenomenon also translated to limitations in joint reporting between both actors and their ability to gain a cohesive and comprehensive picture of geographic presence by actor and respective health interventions implemented in each region. One donor interviewed elaborated on this point:“They’re [donors and implementing agencies] not overlaying and speaking to each other, we need a really good information management unit to be able to take all these data sets and now start helping you to drill it down to make it much more accessible [but] that’s real-time information that has to be updated quite regularly.”—Donor (I21)

Numerous respondents indicated they were simply unaware of what other actors might be present in a geographic area if it fell outside of their mandate, be it humanitarian or development, primarily due to gaps in coordination among each other and delays in information-sharing. Although there is a Health Service Functionality Dashboard for South Sudan available which presents information (originally obtained from the District Health Information System 2), this was not updated in real-time (60).

Field Level Coordination: A more feasible engagement amidst barriers at the national level

In contrast to the limited engagement with the MoH at the national level, humanitarian and development actors at the sub-national level cited stronger coordination with the state and county MoH and the RRC. Though the RRC oversees humanitarian and disaster management at the sub-national level, both actors interviewed referenced coordination with this body and stressed that without coordination and clearance of planned interventions with both the state/county MoH and RRC, actors were unable to operate in a given geographic area. Despite compliance with such coordination protocols, there were still concerns around duplication in terms of health interventions, often leading to an excess or shortage of health services relative to population-based criteria for health services outlined by national health policies and global standards. One donor describes the saturation of services in Bentiu camp for internally displaced persons:“So, if I look at the example of [Bentiu] IDP camp, you have MSF, who’s supporting the main hospital, Bentiu state hospital, supported by World Bank previously HPF. And then you have so many partners funded by all of us donors, [we’re] completely guilty of it […] I think there are five PHCCs in [Bentiu] Camp, which is serving a population of 110,000 to 150,000, depending on the movement, but normally 110. […] But if you look at the national guidelines [for South Sudan and in accordance with global WHO criteria], it should be one PHCC for 50,000 people. So, then you’re kind of going in and you’re seeing duplication” I21—Key Informant, Donor Agency

Health committees in place within each community helped support coordination efforts for the PHCCs and PHCUs, however, the extent of their influence on different actors was less clear given the presence of different international actors who wielded more decision-making power. The need for both humanitarian and development actors to maintain their footprint in a given geographic area was mentioned, even at the risk of duplication or overlap.

Strengths and Limitations

This research had several strengths. The research fills a gap in the literature on the operationalization of health interventions in the nexus in South Sudan. This is the first study to examine the constructs of leadership and governance, financing, and coordination in depth as it pertains to the humanitarian-development-peace nexus and health interventions in South Sudan. The research included a wide range of perspectives from humanitarian and development practitioners in South Sudan, across multiple levels (e.g., donors, UN agencies, NGOs, health authorities, and the private sector). A rigorous methodology was used to develop the key informant interview guide, as the research team utilized the expertise of different subject matter experts (on both RMNCAH and South Sudan) to review and guide the process. Key findings were also reviewed by subject matter experts, including health experts from South Sudan and others with extensive knowledge of different components of the research to ensure a soundness and nuance of such findings (sanctions, coordination and governance structures, RMNCAH). The core research team consisted of humanitarian practitioners, with support from a team of health experts in South Sudan, in order to ensure a contextualized approach. The use of a case study to document findings of this research may prove useful for practitioners working in South Sudan and other fragile settings, as there have been limited examples documented in the literature to date.

The research also had some limitations. These include potential biases (selection, recall, and implicit), with efforts to limit these through ongoing reflexivity by researchers (33,74–76). Given the research team was composed of experienced humanitarian practitioners, there may have been familiarity with some respondents interviewed. Since interviews often probed on sensitive topics, particularly those political in nature (e.g., governance, financing, sanctions), interviewees may have self-censored responses despite assurances of confidentiality. In addition, findings may have touched on topics beyond nexus and RMNCAH (or health) interventions, given the breadth of the HDN. While researchers focused on the specific topics in this paper, some respondents used examples beyond the research scope, often to illustrate priorities outside of, or in addition to, health, given the complexity and fragility in South Sudan. MoH officials in Juba were unable to meet the research team during the on-site visit and following, despite multiple attempts by the research team. This limited the ability to document firsthand perspectives among government stakeholders in Juba, forcing the researchers to rely on other insights from non-government personnel at the capital/national level in South Sudan. The research was commissioned by a USAID-funded RMNCAH program, so there may have been donor-specific considerations taken into account by the research team, including any current/past restrictions within RMNCAH interventions as outlined by US policies on foreign assistance for sexual and reproductive health. In addition to these limitations, access constraints restricted travel for the research team beyond Juba and Bor County for financial, logistical, and security reasons. While interviews conducted in Juba capital were intended to represent broader, country-level findings, this does not guarantee or signify country-wide phenomena. In addition, findings of this study are not nationally representative. Finally, this research did not include interviews with any direct recipients of health services (e.g., patients, clients), as researchers focused on stakeholders from the humanitarian and development sectors at this stage that were directly involved with the financing, design, and delivery of health interventions. A future area of focus may incorporate such perspectives given the importance of centering patients/clients in the design and delivery of services, and more broadly, in ensuring accountability to affected populations.