WORLD BRIDGE BLOG

When my colleague Melanie Teff and I visited Upper Nile and Southern Kordofan states a few weeks ago, we spent a lot of time hearing and talking about water. Sudan had been experiencing a drought, and harvests had yielded far less than normal. People were worried. The international community was worried. The UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) announced that it was increasing its expected number of beneficiaries for food aid in south Sudan this year from 1.1 million to 4.3 million people, a massive increase.

Humanitarian aid-funded boreholes dotted the landscape wherever we went, and no matter how remote these boreholes seemed to be, they always attracted a lively gathering of people and animals. Having access to water close to home was both an advantage and a disadvantage. For women, not having to walk for hours to get the day’s supply of water was a clear benefit. For farmers, having other people’s livestock pass through their land to access nearby water created problems. In parts of Southern Kordofan, there are frequent reports of violence erupting between Misseriya pastoralists and Nuba farmers over livestock routes that cross through farming areas. Fault lines between pastoralists and farmers, especially along the border areas between north and south Sudan, may be a major flashpoint for potential conflict if the south votes for secession in the referendum planned for January 2011.

During our trip, we met with Nuba and Misseriya community members in an effort to better understand the local dynamics of this issue. The Misseriya told us that a joint committee had been established between the two communities to evaluate damages and establish compensation in case of crop destruction. But this didn’t seem to always work, given that violence continues.

We spoke to the communities about possible solutions, such as avoiding farming areas altogether. Predictably, the conversation turned to water. According to the Misseriya, they cannot take longer routes around the farming areas because of the lack of services along the way, especially water points and health facilities. They are obliged to take the fastest route, through farmland. Different pastoralist groups may have different levels of attachment to particular migration routes based on history and tradition, but this group told us that if they had enough water for their livestock in their own community, they would not migrate at all.

We also met with representatives of the recently established government entity, the Reconciliation and Peaceful Co-existence Mechanism (RPCM) in Kadugli. They are trying to address such problems at the community level through reconciliation work, civic education, and cultural events. They suggested we include the need for increased livestock access to water as a key recommendation to international governments. We asked them which they thought would be most effective: additional water access points for pastoralists, or efforts to negotiate access to existing water points in farming areas, especially in cases of cross-border migration if the south votes for secession. They said that negotiations were good but not enough. They can easily be changed or derailed anytime by individuals.

Melanie and I also met with a local NGO working on community reconciliation in a different part of Southern Kordofan. We raised this tricky issue of water access and the misery and violence that seemed to surround it and we asked their advice on solutions we could press for with international governments that fund programs in Sudan. We were quite surprised to learn that they seemed to oppose the establishment of water points for nomadic pastoralists. They said that if the government were to put in water points, the nomads would “claim the land” and settle. This would not be acceptable to the local communities.

So it seems that the legacy of mistrust between different communities, and between north and south, filters down to seriously complicate even the most basic grassroots efforts at avoiding conflict. What we saw in Southern Kordofan illustrates the importance for all humanitarian programs to consider local needs and context.