You'll
need Windows Media Player to listen to these clips. You
can download the correct version here
Helen Young and Rebecca Dale Feinstein
International Famine Center, Tufts University spoke at ODI in
London recently to present the findings and recommendations
of their study 'Darfur, Livelihoods Under Siege', which examines
in detail the effects of conflict on people's livelihoods strategies
and vice versa in the context of contemporary Darfur. The meeting
was attended by a range of actors including government representatives,
humanitarian NGOs, academic institutions and others and chaired
by ODI's Director, Simon Maxwell.
Helen Young began by stressing that this work had been very
much a partnership study with various local organisations
including Ahfad University for Women, Libyan Red Crescent,
and El Kufra University. She went on to say that, though human
rights abuses were an important aspect of conflict, this particular
study was specifically interested in analysing the effects
on livelihoods of selected communities in the region of the
conflict in Darfur. Thus a thorough conflict analysis was
combined with mapping trade routes, tribal territories, systems
of local administrations and the relationships between national
and local authorities to highlight how livelihoods and conflict
were inter-related in Darfur ? both in terms of land and resources
being one of the causes of conflict, and conflict in turn
reducing access to productive resources.
Various livelihood strategies amongst a diverse range of
communities were identified including: cultivating crops,
raising livestock, collecting natural resources such as wood
and wild foods, migration and remittances, and, to a lesser
extent, artisanry. Though different livelihoods appeared to
be more or less significant depending on the region, it was
noted that people generally relied on a combination of these
strategies in their daily lives. The study showed that the
insecurity in the region was resulting in these livelihood
strategies being severely curtailed. This had continued despite
the recent ceasefire agreement.
In particular, livestock was extremely important as it constituted
a multimillion dollar business. The insecurity, however, of
key migration routes was compromising the quality of livestock,
which was having a long term impact on people's assets. The
conflict had also affected access to markets (especially internationally,
both due to insecurity on transit routes and to border closures).
In addition, access to goods within the region had been restricted
and breakdown in communication systems had also limited remittance
transfers and had made it difficult for migrants in neighbouring
countries to return home.
The report suggested that the situation was in constant deterioration
and that if a solution to the conflict was to be reached,
the issue of livelihoods had to be central to the discussion.
Though there was not sufficient time to go through all the
recommendations in the report, two of them were highlighted
in the meeting. Firstly, it was suggested that reconciliation
had to be linked to livelihood issues such as mobility, markets
and the protection of assets. In other words, a political
solution that dealt only with government representation issues,
for instance, would not be enough. Secondly, all aspects of
livelihoods must be considered for interventions to have a
positive impact. Security must be extended to all aspects
of people's lives.
Discussion of the report centred on methodology, comparisons
of the current situation with previous famines in the region,
the need to engage with the diversity of existing livelihood
strategies in the resumption of trade, and the need to bring
effective political pressure to bear on the Government of
Sudan to halt the conflict.
In relation to the study's methodology, one discussant questioned
the separation of local and national level systems, since
local failures seemed to be national as much as they were
local. In response to this, it was explained that the purpose
of the division was to illustrate the way national failures
affected local life to inform both local and national strategies.
The point was raised that the current food insecurity was
different in its nature and severity from previous episodes
of famine which were a result of production failures in the
region. The current conflict had affected a fuller range of
livelihood strategies than in the past. In the past, people
were able to fall back on different strategies if food production
failed but current insecurity made this impossible.
A question was raised about whether there was a likelihood
that trade would resume between southern and northern Sudan.
It was agreed that it would be useful if trade increased,
however, development projects within Darfur must take into
account the complex and sophisticated livelihood strategies
that already exist.
Finally, the inability of the international community (including
the AU) to bring effective pressure on the Government of Sudan
to halt the conflict was acknowledged, but it was reiterated
that this was essential to resolving the conflict.
