The Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF), funded by the government of the UK,
Switzerland, Canada and Netherlands with additional funding from the EU, supports the aid
community in South Sudan through the provision of technical analysis, services and advice
with the objective of integrating conflict sensitive principles and practices into programming
strategies in South Sudan. Conflict sensitivity is an approach that emphasises strong
contextual analysis and programmatic flexibility to minimise aid’s negative consequences
and maximise its positive impacts. Conflict sensitivity is particularly important in volatile,
conflict-affected contexts where inadequate understanding of conflict and political dynamics
can lead to donors and implementing partners inadvertently exacerbating conflict.
The CSRF is looking for a consultant(s) to work with us to deliver the research outlined
below, which will result in two interlinked documents: a research paper (20 pages) and a
good practice guidance paper (5 pages). Consultants may apply individually, or submit
applications as a small team of 2-3 people based on specific roles/contributions. Consultants
are expected to work collaboratively with the CSRF team throughout the process. There may
be an opportunity to extend the contract for further convening and analysis based on
funding availability. The CSRF recommend teams inclusive of South Sudanese researchers
and women.
2) Background:
On 11 September 2018, South Sudanese parties signed the Revitalized Agreement on the
Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), which stipulated ‘a pretransition period of eight months leading to the formation of a new transitional government
of national unity, to govern during a three-year transitional period that will culminate in
elections. The pre-transitional period was extended twice, before a Revitalized Transitional
Government of National Unity (R-TGoNU) was formed on 21 February 2020,
1 with elections
originally planned in 2022 extended to 2024. Significant processes were initiated, including
in relation to the establishment of national- and state-level institutions, the dissolution of
the previous national assembly and agreement on its new composition, as well as the
commencement of the constitution-making process.

(INGOs), national NGOs (NNGOs) and the private sector mobilised immediately to support
the Government of South Sudan in assisting people in need in hard-to-reach areas with very
limited infrastructure, particularly in the most remote border areas, where host
communities are already extremely vulnerable. The Government of South Sudan identified
main border entry points where it was expected to receive large numbers of cross-border
movements. In these locations, the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC)3
, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) began
collecting data at 27 points of entry, setting up transit facilities and supporting voluntary
movement of individuals to various areas, including areas of origin4
. From 16 April 2023 –
until the time of writing, 9
th September 2023, 256,920 people5
(women: 130,218 and men:
126,702)[sex and age break down can be accessed in the footnote]6 have crossed from
Sudan into South Sudan.
Previously, since the signing of the R-ARCSS in October 2018, an estimated 158,000 South
Sudanese had spontaneously and independently returned from Sudan, of whom 80% had
been registered refugees in Sudan. However, since the Sudan’s current conflict started5
,‘returns’ have been mostly from Khartoum, and people reach the border exhausted and
without enough money to proceed to their intended destination, or without a clear
intended destination in mind.
According to intention surveys and assessment by aid actors, many ‘returnees6
’ are severely vulnerable and in need of immediate assistance. As of 7th September, the majority of
arrivals were through the JoudaBorder Crossing Point into Renk, Upper Nile State, arriving
largely from Khartoum, many of these South Sudanese returns were in transit, requesting
transport onwards to Malakal, Upper Nile State, Jonglei Unity and Juba, Central Equatoria.
Additional arrivals into Northern and Western Bahr el Ghazal States, fleeing the Darfur
region of Sudan and into Panukuach, Unity State9
. As the fighting in Sudan has continued,
‘returns’ patterns could change.
The 2023 OCHA Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP)10 estimated that 9.4 million people in
South Sudan [including 2.2 million women, 4.9 million children and 337,000 refugees, and
1,4 million returnees], in need humanitarian assistance, prior to the Sudan crisis. Protection
concerns remain high for people of all genders and ages. According to the Inter-Sector
Needs Assessment (ISNA, 2022) 21% of households that had returned after displacement to
their areas of origin reported that their children do not attend school. Main challenges
pertained to fees, school closure due to conflict, and lack of school materials. For returns
from Sudan, most children have been learning in the arabic pattern, whereas in South
Sudan, the English pattern is taught. Moreover, South Sudan is also one of the worst food
insecurity emergencies in the world. Returnees are particularly vulnerable. According to the
ISNA, 75% of the returnee households reported food as a priority need, followed by shelter
(61%) and health care (53 %). Mental health and psychosocial needs amongst displaced
communities, including returnees remain elevated and largely unaddressed. The ongoing  violence in South Sudan has had major effects on the psychological well-being of the South
Sudanese population, whereas returnees, refugees and other forcibly displaced South
Sudanese continue to cope with losses, family disruptions and disconnection from their
community support systems.
Whilst due to the current conflict in Sudan, returns have been monitored closely there is
also anecdotal evidence that dwindling food rations in Ugandan refugee camps and conflict
in Ethiopia’s Gambella region have, increased numbers of South Sudanese returns from
refugee camps in those countries as well.
The conflict in Sudan has already impacted South Sudan’s economic outlook, particularly for
northern States that are largely dependent on imports from Sudan and where the prices of
basic commodities are skyrocketing. The Sudan-South Sudan border has been actively used
by refugees, migrants, and South Sudanese, as well as for business and the northern states
of South Sudan relies heavily on this cross-border trade, additionally substituting these
markets with imports from other areas of South Sudan are challenging given the logistical
constraints in South Sudan, mainly due to poor road networks, flooding and high costs for
hiring cargo space on air assets or barges. Fuel cost has spiked up to 60% within two weeks
and food prices are up by more than 30% in some areas, and they are likely to increase
further. The high costs of assisting population movements to easier-to-access areas via air
and limited options to relocate those who have been displaced by road during the rainy
season will likely limit people’s ability to move between areas and will place increased
pressure on humanitarian use of waterway transportation infrastructure to assist refugees,
returnees, and third country nationals at borders and transit facilities.
However, despite some efforts to respond coherently across humanitarian, development
and peace Nexus, the emphasis has been primarily on short-term relief. People continue to
suffer, with a protracted crisis compounded by food insecurity and the severe impact of
climate change7 and peace and security remain fragile.
3) Research outline:
The primary intended audience for this paper is aid practitioners, those designing or
implementing aid programmes, and donors with influence over the aid sector in South
Sudan. The CSRF seeks to produce analysis and research that is relevant to donors, UN
agencies, and NGOs (both international and national), with guidance on practical
recommendations for policy and practice. The CSRF aims to use this analysis/research
process to help the aid practitioners to be aware of and access available research and
expertise, to generate enthusiasm and commitment from aid actors across the spectrum to
participate in collective analysis discussions, and to work collaboratively to apply new tools
and solutions to how they work – as individuals, organisations, and as a system. It should
help to inform everyday practice, policy level discussions, as well as the design and oversight
of aid programmes and how it will add value.

The overall objective of this research is to provide donors and aid practitioners with a
stronger understanding of the risks and opportunities associated with ‘returns and
reintegration’ to South Sudan, so that they can take better decisions about where, how and
when to support developmental investments in ways that will maximise their overall
contribution to peace for the South Sudan people.
Understanding the different definitions of Return, used in the South Sudan context:
Return to South Sudan is not uncommon. Following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA), South Sudan experienced ongoing returns between 2005 and 2011.
People also returned prior to the referendum for independence primarily to exercise their
rights to vote and to avoid the risk of potential separation, and after Independence in July
2011, believing their country of origin had improved, or, conversely, because conditions in
their host country had deteriorated, economically, socially, politically or environmentally in
comparison. The Government of South Sudan was able to actively solicit the return of their
nationals/diaspora members from abroad, particularly those who are highly skilled, for
temporary, permanent or even virtual return, to contribute to their human and financial
capital, or to elections and the referendum on independence in 2011 for the development of
their home country.
However, in the case of recent South Sudanese returns from Sudan, it has been
acknowledged that some of the returns have married Sudanese and now have children and
extended family who are Sudanese nationals. Others have arrived to South Sudan no long
having connections to housing, land, property (HLP) or kinship systems. Other South
Sudanese nationals have spent their whole lives in Sudan, yet have not sought asylum and
have no connection to HLP or kinship systems in South Sudan and have lived different
lifestyles in more urban areas and are returning to more rural areas.
IOM, UNHCR and OCHA’s definitions of returns differ. IOM defines a returnee as, ‘Someone
who was displaced from their habitual residence either within South Sudan or abroad, who
has since returned to their habitual residence’. However, IOM’s Displacement Tracking
Matrix (DTM) restricts the category of returnee to individuals who returned to the exact
location of their habitual residence, or an adjacent area based on a free decision. IOM views
reintegration to be sustainable when ‘returnees have reached levels of economic selfsufficiency, social stability within their communities, and psychosocial well-being that allow
them to cope with (re)migration drivers. Having achieved sustainable reintegration,
returnees are able to make further migration decisions a matter of choice, rather than
necessity’. This definition highlights the multidimensional nature of a reintegration process –
physical/security, economic, social and psychosocial – and the need to approach migrant
reintegration in a comprehensive manner, considering the factors that can affect
reintegration at the individual, community and structural levels8
. Those who were displaced
or moved to Sudan as a child have spent much of their childhood and adulthood in Sudan,
often becoming accustomed to life and livelihoods in urban areas that bear little
resemblance to those where they were born or brought up in South Sudan.

In contrast, UNHCR defines returnees as “former refugees who have returned to their
country of origin spontaneously or in an organized fashion but have not yet been fully
(re)integrated.” Therefore, UNHCR would also count as returnees, persons who returned
from abroad and find themselves in a situation of continued displacement (IOM would
consider someone in this situation to still be an IDP) or who have chosen a new habitual
residence (IOM would consider someone in this situation to be relocated). Whilst OCHA in
the South Sudan HRP, 2023, defines a ‘persons who have been displaced from their habitual
residence, either within South Sudan or abroad, who have since returned to their habitual
residence. For OCHA, this category is restricted to individuals who returned to the exact
location of their ‘habitual residence or an adjacent area based on free decision anytime
since 2014. Displaced South Sudanese people crossing the border into South Sudan from the
neighbouring countries, who have not returned to their original homes, are still considered
displaced’. Stories of the complexity ‘returnees’ are facing have already been documented
by the New Humanitarian.
Research questions (to be refined further based on consultations):
The following questions will provide an opportunity to capture practical learning on policy
and programming responses to ‘returns’, to learn from previous experience of efforts
towards integrated approaches, and to highlight key challenges and opportunities which are
particularly important in the future context, exploring linkages across the humanitarian
development peace Nexus to complement the durable solutions lens.
• What does ‘returnee’ and ‘integration’ mean in the current context of South Sudan
and who is eligible for assistance?
o Historic perspective
o Lessons from South Sudan (UN, INGOs/NNGOs, local actors, Church and
other Faith based actors)
o Lessons on donor experience
o Lessons from South Sudanese academics
• What lessons are there from previous aid engagement responding to returns and reintegrating in South Sudan?
• What opportunities, risks and dilemmas should aid practitioners and policy makers
consider when responding in areas where there are currently high numbers of
returnees, given the current wider context including election planning, multi-level
conflict dynamics, the transition period, end of R-ARCCS and climate change/crises?
• What approaches, actions or principles would improve coherence between
humanitarian, development, peacebuilding programming in South Sudan to support
conflict-sensitive ‘returns and integration’?
4) Research process:
This activity will put a strong emphasis on “process” alongside “product.” Relevant literature
should be reviewed for relevance to the current context, however, the CSRF will also seek to
build strong engagement between practitioners, donors, analysts and academics working in
South Sudan now. This research process will require desk-based research and field research
in selected locations. A plan for the process will be developed in cooperation with the CSRF

team, and the researcher(s) will work closely with the CSRF team throughout the process.
Such a plan might include:
• Initial consultation with key stakeholders (facilitated by CSRF)
• Desk research (including literature review)
• Interviews with relevant key informants
• Field research – 3 location(s) TBD
• Presentations of initial findings/recommendations to select target groups
• Submission of draft report
• Incorporate comments from CSRF team
• Final draft
• Roundtable and discussion with policy makers and practitioners
• Further dissemination strategy TBD
• Follow up analysis based on findings from round table discussions with policy
makers and practitioners (please note this would be a decision made by the CSRF at
the end of the contract)
• Process will be finalised in discussion with the consultant(s).
5) Outputs:
This research process aims to examine the suggested questions below, resulting in two
interlinked documents: a research paper focused on informing aid strategies (20 pages, with
a short executive summary and recommendations that have been tested/validated with
practitioners working in South Sudan) and a good practice guidance paper (5 pages).
6) Timeline:
The final timeline will be agreed with the CSRF pending selection. The process is due to start
in early October, with final documents due in December 2023 at the latest. Allocation of
days within this time period will be agreed with consultant(s).
7) Requirements:
The CSRF is looking to contract consultants with the following profile:
• Excellent understanding of the context of South Sudan, especially in relation to the
aid sector;
• Research and/or practitioner experience relevant to the subject matter (e.g. returns,
integration, durable solutions and the HDP nexus);
• Excellent understanding of conflict and gender sensitivity principles and practice in
South Sudan;
• Strong network of relevant key informants;
• Experience conducting reviews of large volume of documents and data;
• Demonstrated ability to handle and communicate sensitive information;
• Demonstrated ability to produce clear, quality written content in English;
• Availability to begin work within the expected timeframe.