- Evaluation Plan:
- 2018-2021, Independent Evaluation Office
- Evaluation Type:
- ICPE/ADR
- Planned End Date:
- 12/2020
- Completion Date:
- 12/2021
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 25,000
Independent Country Programme Evaluation: South Sudan
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 654.13 KB | Posted | 333 |
![]() |
related-document | English | 2308.30 KB | Posted | 320 |
![]() |
related-document | English | 1137.61 KB | Posted | 293 |
![]() |
report | English | 875.67 KB | Posted | 390 |
Title | Independent Country Programme Evaluation: South Sudan | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 95329,90332,72625,64223,72642,95744,95145,91065,95140,106307,106306,103216,86376,86373,90124,64257,97459,64179,61441,102663,64379,105291,96565,75366,94464,77970,105603,103506 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2018-2021, Independent Evaluation Office | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Type: | ICPE/ADR | |||||||||||||||||||||
Status: | Completed | |||||||||||||||||||||
Completion Date: | 12/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Planned End Date: | 12/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Management Response: | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
Focus Area: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
SDG Target |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 25,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Source of Funding: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 25,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Joint Programme: | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Countries: | SOUTH SUDAN |
Lessons | |
---|---|
Findings |
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 | Peace gains made in South Sudan are fragile and the structural causes of conflict, including development underpinnings of peace, are still to be strategically addressed. UNDP’s programme strategy should be more oriented to demonstrating sustainable programme models suitable for the South Sudan context that would accelerate development and peace processes. The response in South Sudan indicates that fragmented peacebuilding efforts had limited outcomes. Drawing on the organization’s experience in other conflict settings, UNDP should explore the possibilities for multi-agency stabilization support that would address key constraints in peacebuilding and provide reliable, accountable and transparent modalities for partnership with the government. While UNDP may continue to provide development services to other agencies, the main focus should be on enabling viable peace and development solutions. Stabilization and sustainable peace dividends in South Sudan require simultaneously addressing humanitarian and developmental needs. UNDP’s programme strategy should reflect this urgency. UNDP should position itself to promote solutions that would enable a development approach to peace by connecting actors and resources. A clear distinction between shortterm support and long-term peace and development programmes that reflect UNDP’s core mandate, should define UNDP programme strategy. |
2 | For an inclusive implementation of the Peace Agreement, UNDP’s support to peacebuilding in South Sudan should address the complex task of strengthening linkages between community-level expectations and national peace processes. While there is no prescribed solution to respond to the complexity of the peace process in South Sudan, there are three areas for UNDP to consider focusing its support. First, mechanisms for fostering dialogue are critical for bridging trust and buy-in of the revitalization process and peacebuilding initiatives. UNDP’s support should be oriented to enabling dialogue between citizens and government to share and manage expectations. Also, initiatives should be supported to address some of the anomalies of the Revitalized Peace Agreement process by enabling linkages to local-level dialogue. Advocacy efforts should be supported to bridge the gap among international, national and local peace efforts and to facilitate neutral spaces for civil society engagement. Second, to strengthen peace institutions and infrastructure at the national and state levels, there should be a prioritization of areas where there will be consistent engagement. Third, UNDP’s support to community peace efforts should be anchored in state and national peace initiatives. Merely including youth in the community peace programmes will not be sufficient to engage them as agents of peace. UNDP should facilitate policy solutions by connecting concerned actors for generational transformation initiatives that focus on improving youth income and productive resources. Programmes should seek to address social cohesion fault lines that can exacerbate violence and negative coping mechanisms among youth.
|
3 | Public administration support should focus on strengthening the capacities of key institutions and related reform processes. A well-considered approach to strengthening the governance capacities of local government institutions should be prioritized, as it is critical for stabilization and sustained peace and development. Short-term human resource support for extended periods will be counterproductive in strengthening South Sudanese institutions. UNDP should move away from the humanitarian mode of governance support of substituting human resources and ad hoc policy support, to a more strategic approach to strengthening institutions and policy processes and human resource capacities. With strong partnerships with the government at the national and state levels, UNDP is strongly positioned to play a larger role in streamlining civil service and public administration capacities. South Sudan, as a young nation with evolving institutions, provides opportunities for introducing new public administration tools. UNDP should promote digital solutions for improving governance and social services. UNDP should be selective in its support to sector governance at the national and/or state level. For example, areas such as access to justice or PFM need well-considered strategies for consistent engagement in key areas within these broad sectors where UNDP can bring its expertise and solutions. Also, specific emphasis is needed to support health sector governance, where UNDP is heavily involved in its support to the implementation of the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis. UNDP should prioritize support to local government capacities, with particular emphasis on strengthening service delivery. Specific emphasis is needed to support area development models to strengthen local government capacities in service delivery and to anchor community peace mechanisms. There should be a prioritization of fewer geographical areas to demonstrate workable solutions to improving local government capacities. The South Sudan Partnership for Recovery and Resilience (PfRR) platform should be used to forge inter-agency local development solutions for peace and development. Building on its ongoing support to data and policy analysis, UNDP should identify areas for consistent engagement. This is also an area where coordination within UNCT is critical for maximizing support to SDG data systems.
|
4 | UNDP should review its livelihood and employment programme approach to bring them up to scale. Support to productive capacities and value-chain initiatives needs a well-considered strategy and strong programmatic partnerships to enable a full range of responses. Improving livelihoods and productive capacities is a key driver of peace and stability. Short-term initiatives in the face of immense needs have limited significance for transforming livelihoods. UNDP should strengthen and formalize programmatic partnerships with UN agencies as well as other international agencies and the private sector to support integrated employment and livelihood solutions. Consideration should be given to using the local-area economic development approach for strengthening livelihoods and productive capacities. For example, in the oil-producing areas, skills development should focus on job and business opportunities available within the oil and gas value-chain. This will eventually prepare South Sudanese to take over some of the jobs in a sector currently dominated by outsiders. Ensure a conflict-sensitive approach in livelihood programme support. Prioritize interior rural regions that are severely conflict-affected. Livelihood support should be informed by the ecosystem services approach linking adaptation, disaster preparedness and livelihoods. Build on the potential of renewable energy for sustainable livelihoods solutions. Support a conducive policy environment and institutional capacity for expanding energy services in productive sectors such as agriculture and for promoting decentralized renewable energy technologies. UNDP should support the formalization of social protection measures and the use of tools appropriate for South Sudan. Considering that food security support in South Sudan lacks a framework, provide policy support for strengthening the linkages between social protection measures and food security initiatives predominant in humanitarian support. |
5 | UNDP should continue its emphasis on strengthening efforts to promote women’s security and access to development resources. UNDP should consider programmatic partnerships in select areas such as access to justice and addressing violence against women. UNDP has shown commitment to strengthening gender equality and empowerment of women in its programme strategies and planning. Continue to support national policies and programme models to improve women’s security and economic empowerment. Prioritize areas and establish partnerships for in-depth engagement.
|
6 | A conflict programming context and nascent markets in South Sudan present challenges for private sector engagement. UNDP should support efforts to address these challenges in developing practical ways to engage the private sector in employment-generation and social services. With programmes at the state and local levels, UNDP can bring to private sector engagement its comparative advantage in policy development and programme implementation. This potential should be capitalized on for more strategic engagement in strengthening policy space for private sector engagement. Based on an assessment of opportunities and structural constraints in South Sudan, develop a private sector strategy along with the forthcoming country programme. The strategy should aim to enable a conducive environment for small and medium-sized enterprises. Drawing on the lessons of the current programme, seek to address binding policy constraints. Use the Accelerator Lab to identify tools that have a greater possibility of succeeding in a fragile context. Identify sectors for greater engagement where UNDP can partner with other UN agencies for private sector development. Many development challenges in South Sudan are linked to energy access. Take concrete measures to support access to renewable energy services. Position UNDP as a connector of renewable energy ecosystem actors, enabling collaboration between the private sector and state and central governments. Facilitate efforts to address regulatory environment as well as sector-specific policy measures.
|
7 | Expanding field offices should be prioritized to work towards conflict-sensitive sustainable programme options. The field offices should establish stronger partnerships with the local government and other actors to promote local-area development solutions. In a dynamic peace context, field presence is critical for UNDP’s contribution to local-level strategies and improved capacities. UNDP recognizes this and is establishing three field offices in addition to the project offices already present. Once established, there will be a need to ensure that field offices, rather than acting merely as implementing units of the Juba office, have context-based local-area development strategies. Where UNDP project offices are already present, improvements are suggested, so that their capacities go beyond the role of project implementation and become units capable of developing local solutions and of galvanizing other actors
|