Mr. Conor Elliott:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to talk about the crisis in South Sudan; it is a privilege to be able to do so. I also join in Mr. Andrews's sentiment in thanking the Deputies for their recent visits - two in the last year - when they took the time to come and explore the issues with us in the field.

I will give a quick overview of the situation in South Sudan, provide some of the facts and figures, outline the context and briefly talk about GOAL's response. Hopefully we can answer some questions afterwards and put a slightly more human narrative to the committee. The figure are stark and alarming, and often the human element is lost in a conversation about numbers.

As the Deputies will know, the current conflict in South Sudan began in mid-December 2013, when a long-standing political dispute erupted into violence. An armed confrontation between officers loyal to President Salva Kiir and soldiers backing his ex-deputy, Riek Machar, broke out in a Sudan People's Liberation Army barracks, in Juba. The events leading up to the clash continue to be disputed, but regardless of exactly what precipitated them, the subsequent exchanges of fire tipped the balance from unstable peace to widespread political violence. The confrontation quickly deteriorated as the split in the army was replicated across sections of the population, resulting in widespread violence and killings, largely along tribal and ethnic lines.

South Sudan is already one of the poorest countries in the world with some of the world's worst development indicators, and is now rated as the world's most fragile state. The impact of the ongoing conflict on the overall humanitarian situation has been catastrophic and is showing little potential for improvement. Similarly, there is virtually no sign of political will for an end to hostilities, although we discovered today that a peace accord was signed last night in Arusha in Tanzania. We will wait to see how that progresses - it is one of many steps along the way that we have taken before.

We are now one year on from the UN declaration of a level 3 emergency. As Mr. Andrews has explained, this is the highest classification of a humanitarian crisis. The overall security situation in South Sudan continues to be volatile, unpredictable and extremely violent, particularly in the three states of Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile, which have been directly affected by the conflict. Meanwhile localised violence, military defections and ethnic tensions have spread to areas that were previously relatively peaceful. Today, over 1.5 million people have been internally displaced as a result of violence and insecurity, while an additional half million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries. Regional and international attempts at stemming the conflict have proved ineffectual, with all cessation of hostilities agreements and ceasefires signed to date - again, bearing in mind what happened last night - proving effectively worthless in practice, with neither government nor opposition forces acquiescing to their terms.

In 2014, urgent action from the humanitarian community narrowly averted what would have been the world's first man-made famine. However, the ongoing conflict, subsequent failed planting and harvest, widespread destruction of assets, poorly functioning markets and increased cattle disease have now left 2.5 million people at risk of food insecurity. There is an urgent need for scaling up the humanitarian efforts in South Sudan now to prevent the widespread loss of life. The situation is so dire that even allowing for large-scale food aid interventions, South Sudan is likely to experience famine in some parts of the country in the coming months.

GOAL has a long-standing history in Sudan and has been operational there since 1985. Its initial programmes worked in the health sector and primary health care remains at the core of our programming in South Sudan, although our operations have expanded over the years to include multi-sectoral responses in water, sanitation, nutrition, livelihoods and emergency non-food item programming. Since the outbreak of hostilities in December, our programmes have shifted in response to the rapidly changing needs of both the internally displaced and the vulnerable and under-served host communities, to include a significant emergency response portfolio, particularly across the Upper Nile state. GOAL has positioned itself so as to meet the needs of people displaced from its historical areas of operation along the corridors of displacement in South Sudan and across the border into the refugee camps in Gambella, Ethiopia. In South Sudan, GOAL has scaled up its programme significantly, providing life-saving emergency interventions to almost 700,000 beneficiaries through 66 health and nutrition centres. This programme is complemented by integrated food security, livelihood, water and sanitation programmes.

In response to the crisis last year, we expanded our operations into new areas following the displacement patterns of the communities forcibly displaced because of the violence. Late last year, GOAL's nutrition team carried out a nutrition assessment in an area of Upper Nile state, which showed alarming rates of malnutrition in this hard-to-reach area, with 47.5% of children aged six months to 59 months presenting as malnourished. This is significantly beyond the World Health Organization's emergency threshold and the worst rates of malnutrition that GOAL's experienced nutrition team has ever seen.

GOAL also works in informal camps for internally displaced people, as well as supporting host communities whose livelihoods and coping mechanisms have been severely stretched by the large-scale presence of the displaced. In Ethiopia, GOAL teams continue to form a critical part of our overall response to the South Sudan crisis by managing emergency nutrition, feeding programmes and other support in Gambella. This region, located just over the border from our programmes in Upper Nile state, continues to experience enormous influxes of South Sudanese refugees. More than 193,000 have sought refuge here since December 2013 and we expect those numbers to rise dramatically again in the coming months.

Working closely together, the two teams in South Sudan and Ethiopia look to provide a continuum of care along this corridor.

The committee will be familiar with the recent visit by President Higgins to the Gambella refugee camps. Mr. Andrews referred to Ireland’s interest and history of involvement and the reference to Ireland punching above its weight. It was great for GOAL, for the beneficiaries and for the wider sector in the region to see the President of Ireland visiting a remote and difficult corner of Ethiopia which is a very challenging environment at the heart of this response. We were delighted to be a part of that experience.

Irish Aid’s support in both South Sudan and Ethiopia is critical in meeting the needs of over 259,700 direct beneficiaries through both emergency and recovery funding mechanisms; enabling life-saving health, nutrition and water and sanitation programmes; preventing further loss of assets and livelihoods; and putting in place foundations for future community recovery. GOAL would like to take this opportunity to thank the Irish Government and the Irish people for the generous support that they have shown to our programmes in South Sudan and Ethiopia. The statistics relating to that support are contained in the submission to the committee. In 2014, the Irish public and taxpayers have, through Irish Aid, given aid worth €3 million for the response in South Sudan. We emphasise the need for continued assistance and awareness to help prevent widespread loss of life.

We were asked to speak to the committee about some of the key humanitarian challenges for operating in South Sudan. I am sure members will have questions about this situation. Due to extreme levels of poverty, the almost total lack of infrastructure and the proliferation of armed actors, South Sudan has long been one of the most complex humanitarian operating environments, a situation that has only intensified since the outbreak of conflict. For this conflict to end, and for GOAL and other international non-governmental organisations to reach as many people as possible with humanitarian aid in the interim, key challenges must be addressed. There is an imperative need for a coherent political solution. Contrary to how it has regularly been presented as an intrinsically ethnic conflict, South Sudan’s crisis is an inherently political crisis and as such, it requires a political solution. The main IGAD-mediated peace talks have proven largely ineffective as have a host of political initiatives in the region over the past 14 months, with a view to resolving this crisis. Equally, the African Union’s decision to delay indefinitely the publication of a report into human rights abuses conducted by both sides – ostensibly to enable the continuation of peace talks – represents a key strategic error, in our opinion. The absence of a meaningful reconciliation process since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005 has been one of the primary contributing factors to the current crisis, whereby the main political actors involved have re-ignited long-standing unresolved tribal rivalries in order to serve their own political ends. As such, openly addressing the abuses and violations that have been committed by all parties in this conflict is key to enabling future reconciliation among fragmented and traumatised civilians.

With regard to shrinking humanitarian space, since the eruption of hostilities more than a year ago, relations between the international community – including international NGOs - and the Government of South Sudan, have deteriorated significantly. It should be pointed out that since the eruption of hostilities more than a year ago, relations between the international community, including international NGOs and the Government of South Sudan, have degraded. Initially, increasing governmental antagonism centred on UNMISS and other UN agencies. However, from mid-2014 onwards, South Sudanese government officials have increasingly targeted international NGOs. This has taken the form of an increasingly restrictive operating environment, with bureaucratic impediments, both formal and informal, restrictions on humanitarian access, and proposals to introduce legislation giving the government direct control over humanitarian operations, in contravention of humanitarian principles, international law and South Sudan’s constitution. These policies are having a deleterious effect on the ability of NGOs to impartially provide services to all people in need, regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation.

A critical shortfall in donor support and key logistical assets is a particular constraint for the humanitarian community but the humanitarian needs remain acute. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, predicts that $1.8 billion is required for the 2015 response, of which $600 million is needed by the end of February to make use of the narrow window for transportation of critical supplies and assets, in preparation for the arrival of the rainy season in April or May. Of particular concern is the shortfall in funding for essential logistical services, in particular air support. Given the lack of a road network in South Sudan and the fact that 90% of all international development projects are in difficult to reach locations – many of which are only accessible by helicopter – the international NGO community is reliant on a regular and effective UN Humanitarian Air Service asset which in South Sudan is operated by the World Food Programme. However, funding for the World Food Programme has been problematic and there has been a restriction and a reduction in the number of air assets available for deployment in South Sudan. Similarly, the UN central emergency response fund is exhausted. This has provided an essential pipeline for funding the humanitarian community’s response in South Sudan.

That concludes my brief overview. I would be pleased to answer any questions from members with regard to the context and the challenges.