2.1 Case Selection

South Sudan was selected as a case study to explore the implementation of the four ‘must do’ actions for three reasons.

First, the research could focus on the use and implementation of the IASC Guidelines in one of the worst and most complex humanitarian crises worldwide. Challenges and opportunities that arise during the implementation of the four ‘must do’ actions – although highly context-specific – may also apply in other demanding humanitarian crises, particularly in the same region, e.g. Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tigray, Ethiopia. As mentioned, ongoing communal violence, combined with the threats of the COVID-19 pandemic, drought and irregular episodes of abnormally heavy rainfall, which culminate in severe flooding, mean that humanitarian assistance is much needed and unlikely to end in the near future. In such a fragile context, it is important to consider the needs and specific requirements of persons with disabilities and to study how they can better be included in the humanitarian response in the long-term so that they have sustained access to services and can make their voices heard.

Second, humanitarian organizations have become increasingly aware of persisting barriers to disability inclusion and have scaled up their support for persons with disabilities. In 2020, the South Sudan Humanitarian Fund (2021, p.21) targeted 173,000 persons with disabilities, which is 12 per cent of the total beneficiary population.5 Moreover, many clusters and organizations intensified their collaboration with OPDs (ibid.). In particular, the health cluster has made important strides to improve the access and quality of services for persons with disabilities (ibid., p.52). This makes South Sudan an intriguing context to study disability inclusion, especially to assess whether and how humanitarian actors are already implementing the IASC Guidelines in their programmes and organizational structures.

Third, as both HI and CBM have been working in South Sudan for many years, they have established close partnerships with the UN, humanitarian and development NGOs, OPDs and relevant government bodies. These partnerships widened the scope of this study significantly and enabled the researchers to conduct interviews with a diverse group of humanitarian staff from different types of organizations. Moreover, HI was able to organize focus group discussions with representatives from organizations of persons with disabilities in Yei and Yambio, although these discussions did not provide much information on barriers and needs of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities.