How South Sudan Policymakers Missed the G-Spot on the Nile Dredging Plans
Sudd Wetland, Jonglei State, South Sudan
By Akuol Philip Kur Ngong, Toronto, Canada
Sunday, 24 July 2022 (PW) — The “Nile dredging” that was proposed as a possible solution to the wicked flood crisis in South Sudan has now been personified with cheeky memes going viral across popular South Sudanese media outlets. As it stands, public opinion about it is unmanageably polarised. Artists have come up with songs in the hope of swaying public opinion. Grandmas are ruminating on it under tree shades, and some flood victims are soaking in the Nile, confronting its overflows with their hands.
Politicians are scheming, and the country’s relationship with Egypt is on trial. One would ask: how has such a salient issue become a joke despite the miserable state the country has been in trying to forge forward with persistent drought and flood problems in the last three years?
Anyone who has been keeping up with the happenings in South Sudan knows that the last three years in South Sudan presented a fertile window of opportunity for water management policy. A series of focus-inducing events, such as devastating floods and the massive efforts to mitigate their impacts, and the ongoing political appeasement to buy peace altogether, provided fodder to get the necessary attention of those in and outside the South Sudan government to take unanimous actions to address the issue of floods.
In the last three years, the flood problem was so dire and unprecedented that it attracted not only the attention of the local South Sudanese public and its elites but also that of its diaspora and the international community. Additionally, in the last three years, the state of politics was atypically warm and accommodating, and the presented solution to flooding, Nile dredging, was put forward as a plausible policy option. But how did we miss the target and end up in a rope-pulling Tamil?
The answer is simple: the failure of the policy process. The policy process is defined as the sequential stages of policymaking, which include (1) problem emergence, (2) agenda framing and setting, (3) consideration of policy options, (4) decision-making, (5) implementation, and (6) evaluation. While all these stages are essential for successful policy development, it appears that South Sudanese policymakers jumped from stage 1 to 5 when the public was awakened and enraged by an unusual influx of dredging machines into the country without their blessings. The Nile and its wetlands, among South Sudanese, are a red zone and a livelihood issue, as duly recognized in the South Sudan Water Policy 2007.
The Water Policy 2007, though not comprehensive, provides the basic framework for effective consultation on water issues. The policy aims to “promote management of water resources through two key principles: 1) water is a shared resource, and appropriate legal frameworks shall be established to govern water use, and 2) water resources planning shall involve all relevant stakeholders and be undertaken on the basis of natural hydrologic boundaries.” As stated in the policy, any water resources planning must involve all relevant stakeholders, and failure to do that could be attributed to missing a policy window.
The current outcry of the stakeholders is not so much about the dredging process as it is about who framed and set the dredging agenda and why? A corollary to this initial question is: what policy options were considered, who came up with them, and when and where? Importantly, who made that ‘Let’s dredge’ decision and why?
While it is easy to point fingers at individuals who are championing the dredges, it could be instructive to recognize that they might be victims of failed institutions. South Sudan is a relatively new country, institutions are nascent, and recent post-independent conflicts have made progress in the water sector slow.
For instance, despite strong policy frameworks for integrated water resources management, many of the governance structures proposed in the Water Bill in 2013 are not yet established and operationalized. Limited coordination and overlapping responsibilities between national and local water management institutions make it nearly impossible to engage in water planning and management effectively.
In terms of policy implications, it is imperative that the South Sudan government focus on developing and empowering its institutions and separate powers between them. Doing so will cure the wicked situation where national issues with the potential for uniting people easily become political and divisive.
The author, Ms. Akuol Philip Kur Ngong (B. Com, MPP, Toronto University), is a concerned South Sudanese Canadian and can be reached via her email: Rhoda Philip <rhoda.philip@mail.utoronto.ca>
If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary, or news analysis, please email it to the editor: info@paanluelwel.com or paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website does reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city, and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
