Republic of South Sudan Donor Book. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning /13. Page 1

Transcription

1 Republic of South Sudan Donor Book Finance and Economic Planning /13 Page 1

2 Table of Contents Foreword... 4 Acknowledgements... 5 Executive Summary Introduction Objectives of the Donor Book Implementing the RSS Aid Strategy Aid Strategy Benchmarks Indicators to measure progress Implementing the AIMS Overview of Development Assistance to South Sudan Sector Analysis Accountability Economic Functions Education Health Infrastructure Natural Resources and Rural Development Public Administration Rule of Law Security Social and Humanitarian Affairs Donor Analysis African Development Bank Australia Basic Services Fund Canada Capacity Building Trust Fund Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) Denmark EU Germany Japan Multi-Donor Trust Fund for South Sudan (MDTF) Page 2

3 5.12. Netherlands Norway South Sudan Recovery Fund Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Children s Fund (Unicef) United States of America World Bank Annex 1. Indicators to measure DP progress against the Aid Strategy Benchmarks Annex 2. Division of Reporting Responsibilities amongst donors: Annex 3. Next Steps in Implementing the AIMS in South Sudan Annex 2: Summary of Donor Projects by Sector Page 3

4 Foreword The RSS Aid Strategy was launched in October 2011, and provides a framework for improving the effectiveness of development assistance and humanitarian aid in South Sudan. It was developed after reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the aid architecture in Southern Sudan at the onset of independence, and in particular the pervasive fragmentation of donor projects and a lack of alignment with Government priorities. It also reflects international best practice in aid effectiveness, as outlined in the Paris Declaration (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and most recently reiterated in the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (2011). One year since the launch of the revised Aid Strategy, this Donor Book provides a timely opportunity to review the progress that has been made and present a baseline assessment of performance. In many regards, the last 12 months have presented a challenging environment for both Government and donors. The oil shut down and resulting austerity measures, whilst essential to safeguard our sovereignty and to secure our long-term prosperity, have increased uncertainty and constrained the national budget for service delivery. Furthermore, periodic insecurity in parts of the country has hampered our development efforts and heightened humanitarian concerns. The New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States reminds us that fragile and post-conflict countries are amongst the poorest and most vulnerable to internal and external shocks, and South Sudan is no exception to this. By endorsing the New Deal, both the Government and our development partners have committed to engaging through a principle of risk-sharing and risk-management, which recognises that in unstable environments of fragility, the risk of not engaging can outweigh the risks perceived in engagement. We are therefore grateful for the ongoing support of our development partners throughout the turbulent last year, and welcome the continued growth in assistance as reported in this Donor Book. In times of prosperity and times of uncertainty, we should not lose sight of the longer-term intention of delivering aid that is aligned to a country-led agenda which strengthens national capacity and builds Government systems. This is the agenda set out in the RSS Aid Strategy. The publication of the Donor Book is a vital component in measuring the implementation of this, as it sets out the development assistance that South Sudan is receiving and assesses progress towards meeting the aid delivery benchmarks. We hope it will provide a platform for open dialogue between Government and our partners, strengthen our mutual accountability, and ultimately improve the development outcomes for the people of South Sudan. Page 4

5 Acknowledgements The Finance and Economic Planning extends its gratitude to Development Gateway, who provide the Aid Management Platform software which constitutes the Aid Information Management System (AIMS) in South Sudan. Additional thanks are given to the United Nations Development Programme for their continued financial support of the AIMS. Page 5

6 Executive Summary The revised Republic of South Sudan Aid Strategy was launched in October 2011 and provides a framework for Government and donor partners to improve their engagement. It stemmed from the recognition that vast sums of aid resources were being wasted in South Sudan because of the inefficient way in which it was being delivered. Characterised by a proliferation of fragmented projects from a rapidly growing number of actors operating under divergent agendas, aid was doing little to build national capacity and was failing to deliver consistent results on the ground. The Aid Strategy set out a new way of doing business, by presenting a set of six benchmarks, which collectively Government and development partners are expected to move towards: Aid is aligned with overall Government and sector policies and plans. Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems. Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and channelled through Government public financial management (PFM) systems. Aid supports institutional capacity and systems. Aid is oriented towards the achievement of outcomes. Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided. One year after the launch of the Aid Strategy, the 2012/13 Donor Book provides a timely opportunity to undertake a baseline assessment of performance. Core to this endeavor has been the strengthening of donor reporting, which is done through the Aid Information Management System (AIMS). An online database which collects standardised information about donor projects, AIMS is a critical tool in monitoring Aid Strategy implementation and relies heavily on donor compliance with the reporting calendar. Namely, development partners are requested to provide forward looking indicative commitments at the start of the annual budget process, and expenditure on a biannual basis. Improving compliance with this calendar will be a priority going forwards. An overview of development assistance to South Sudan reveals that aid allocations are continuing to grow, albeit at a reduced rate. Reported commitments for 2012/13 stand at just over USD 1.4bn, reflecting 0.8% growth from 2011 levels. However whilst aid allocations remain high, historically development partners have tended to spend substantially less than their committed funds. This is a problem of aid predictability which continues to be a prevalent theme in this Donor Book; in 2011, only 49% of allocated funding was reported as spent, whilst the average project deviation from planned spend stood at 68%. Furthermore, a second dimension of poor predictability can be appreciated in the absence and incompleteness of medium-term projections. Only 15% of agencies provided medium-term projections during the 2012/13 planning process, and for those that did, the volume (and therefore likely comprehensiveness) of those projections was low (2013/14 and 2014/15 projections were on average equivalent to only 27% of 2012/13 projections). The poor predictability of development financing (captured jointly under benchmarks 3 and 5) is considered problematic as it significantly undermines the ability of the Government to plan and budget effectively. Page 6

7 Aid continues to be highly concentrated in South Sudan, with the top five donors accounting for 59% of aid in 2011, and the top 15 accounting for 77%. However this concentration is coupled with growing fragmentation, which is captured in poor performance against benchmark 6: aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided. Fragmentation is seen to be a multifaceted problem in South Sudan; at the project level, proliferation of projects continues to grow with 419 planned projects reported for 2012/13. At the level of the sector, development partners continue to operate an excessive number of sectors. In 2012/13, the average number of donors per sector slightly exceeds12, of which on average 10 planning to contribute less than USD 20m (the recommended threshold for bilateral engagement in a sector). Significant progress against this benchmark will be expected in the coming year. Stronger baseline performance is recorded against benchmark 1: aid is aligned with overall Government and sector policies and plans, with over 89% of 2012/13 allocations found to be aligned to SSDP priority programmes. This result is encouraging, as it indicates that development partners are taking strident efforts to align the support to the Government agenda rather than divergent agendas from donor agencies. Other benchmarks may take longer to achieve, but are considered to be of equal importance. For example, whilst no aid will be channelled through Government systems in 2012/13, the Government is committed to working with its partners to strengthen PFM and service delivery channels to enable this to happen in the near future. The Local service Support Aid Instrument is being developed by the Government to move this agenda forward. It will enable aid to support local service delivery in South Sudan by using the government system for State conditional transfers (salary and operational) to channel aid funds to finance indispensable inputs and processes at facility and county levels. It is hoped that partners will consider channelling support through this instrument in 2013/14 and beyond. At the sector-level, the 2012/13 Donor Book portrays some interesting trends in aid financing. Whilst the Social and Humanitarian Affairs sector continues to receive the highest volume of aid in 2012/13, it does so by a reduced margin, with commitments falling by 33% between 2011 and 2012/13. This may in part be due to incomplete reporting (a number of donors noted their intention to increase humanitarian aid following the oil shut down, but this is unlikely to have been fully captured in the 2012/13 reporting round), but it may also be indicative of a trend away from short-term humanitarian assistance towards longer-term development aid. The Government welcomes such a transition, as development assistance can help to build institutional capacity whilst humanitarian aid tends to be delivered through channels that bypass Government systems. The most significant growth has been seen in allocations to the Infrastructure sector, which has grown by USD 133m between 2011 and 2012/13, and now accounts for 17% of all aid. This is driven by growing support for roads (predominantly feeder roads), which has increased by 270% over the period. The Government welcomes the scale up in support to the sector, given that infrastructure development including roads, air, water and power, is one of the most significant obstacle undermining economic development, poverty reduction and security in South Sudan. It is hoped that this rate of growth will continue in the future, in particular through scaled up support for trunk roads and infrastructure development outside of Juba. Page 7

8 Performance against the aid strategy benchmarks varies significantly by sector. In terms of the predictability of aid as supported through the provision of medium-term projections, Infrastructure is one of the best performing sectors with 60% of donors providing allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15. This may be in part be related to the profile of infrastructure investments, which tend to be multi-year. What is notable is the performance in the Economic Functions sector, where 75% of partners have provided medium-term commitments, significantly higher than any other sector. By contrast, in the Security and Social and Humanitarian Affairs sectors only 25% and 22% of partners respectively provided two and three year indicative commitments. In the latter, this may be due to the ad-hoc nature of crisis-response, but donors should note that such short-term planning horizons undermine the Government s capacity to plan and budget effectively. The second aspect of predictability that is the performance of donors in spending annual aid commitments in full paints a very different picture. In the Economic Functions sector, on average only 23% of donor funds are reported as spent. Much stronger performance is registered in the Health and Education sectors, where 70% and 73% of funds were reported as spent respectively. The degree of fragmentation also varies at the sector level. Fragmentation is the most prominent in the Social and Humanitarian Affairs sector, where 16 development partners are reported as having committing funds for 2012/13, 14 of which intend to contribute relatively low levels (defined as less that USD 20m). Furthermore less than 2% of funding to the sector is being channelled through pooled funds, despite the existence of three active pooled funds (South Sudan Recovery Fund, Multidonor Trust Fund and the Common Humanitarian Fund). The Health sector by contrast has 17 reported donors, but efforts have been made to reduce fragmentation with 21% of funds being channelled through pooled funds, due in large part to the Basic Service Fund and the upcoming establishment of the Health Pooled Fund. Overall performance against the aid strategy benchmarks may be mixed, but in general the Donor Book provides an indication of the significant amount of progress which still needs to be made. The Government does not expect the benchmarks to be achieved overnight. However, development partners are expected to work with the Government to make considerable moves towards achieving these benchmarks over the lifetime of the Strategy. In is hoped that marked progress will be made over the course of 2012/13, particularly in terms of aid fragmentation and predictability. Finally it should be noted that the 2012/13 planning process was the first time that Sector Working Groups were asked to complete Sector Aid Financing Plans, and the first year that (a number of) donors reported on the AIMS directly. This in itself is a remarkable achievement, and the Government is grateful for the outstanding cooperation partners have demonstrated. There is much progress to be made on the part of both the Government and development partners in implementing the Aid Strategy, and we look forward to open dialogue on how to go about this. It is hoped that the Donor Book can provide a starting point for this. Page 8

9 1. Introduction 1.1. Objectives of the Donor Book The annual Donor Book provides the Government of South Sudan, development partners and the international community with a consolidated overview of the aid landscape in South Sudan. It is based primarily on data collected in the Aid Information Management System, and sector-level analysis and planning undertaken by the Sector Working Groups in their Sector Aid Financing Plans. The Donor Book is one of a set of tools the Government has developed to support the implementation of the RSS Aid Strategy. Launched in 2011, the Aid Strategy provides a framework for the Government and development partners to improve the effectiveness of development assistance and humanitarian aid delivery in South Sudan by aligning funding to the Government s core priorities. Through the provision a coherent picture of aid to South Sudan, the Donor Book can enhance aid coordination by identifying of areas of overlap or neglect in donor activity, and reviewing alignment of aid with national priorities. In addition, the 2012/13 book will for the first time also assess development partner performance towards the Aid Strategy benchmarks (see section 2.1). The Donor Book is not a policy document, and as such should not be viewed in isolation. Rather it is a performance report that provides an assessment of donor performance and plans, the policy implications of which will be spelt out in the National Aid Financing Plan which is currently under development. It is envisaged that these recommendations will then be implemented through the set of aid coordination mechanisms developed by the Government, which include Sector Working Groups, the Inter-Ministerial Appraisal Committee, the Quarterly Government Donor Forum, and the High-level Partnership Forum. In this regard, the 2012/13 Donor Book is valuable tool for enhancing donor accountability in South Sudan. Page 9

10 2. Implementing the RSS Aid Strategy 2.1. Aid Strategy Benchmarks The Aid Strategy is based on a set of Partnership Principles intended to inform the engagement between the Government and people of South Sudan. These are based on international best practice, as promulgated in the Paris Declaration (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development (2011), as well as an understanding of the particular challenges of aid management in fragile states (see New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, 2011) and specifically the Republic of South Sudan. In an effort to ensure that these principles are applied to development practice in South Sudan and translate into tangible Aid Strategy Partnership Principles Development Assistance should: 1. Be Government-owned and - led; 2. Be aligned with Government policies 3. Use Government systems and 4. Be predictable, over both the short and medium term; 5. Be coordinated and harmonised through sectoral mechanisms; 6. Be managed for results 7. Be based on the principle of mutual accountability. improvements in the effectiveness of aid delivery, the Aid Strategy establishes six core benchmarks that the Government and development partners will work towards, namely: 1. Aid is aligned with overall Government and sector policies and plans. 2. Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems. 3. Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and channelled through Government public financial management (PFM) systems. 4. Aid supports institutional capacity and systems. 5. Aid is oriented towards the achievement of outcomes. 6. Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided. The 2012/13 Donor Book will be the first book to begin to measure progress towards meeting the six benchmarks for aid delivery. The results that it presents should be considered a baseline, and progress will be measured against this from 2013/14 onwards. In addition, the Sector Aid Financing Plans, which were written by Sector Working Groups (led by the donor co-chairs) during the 2012/13 planning and budgeting process, provide and outline of development partners plans to moving towards the benchmarks over the coming year. The Government recognises that achieving these benchmarks will require significant work by both the Government and development partners. Critically, the process will be concurrent with Government efforts to develop and strengthen its policies, systems and institutions. Therefore analysis of development partner progress towards the benchmarks should be considered in conjunction with a review of Government s performance towards its commitment to strengthen its systems, particularly in the area of public financial management (PFM) Indicators to measure progress To allow the Government to measure Development Partner progress against the aid strategy benchmarks, MOFEP has developed a set of indicators. Data will be collected from a variety of sources, but we have tried to keep this collection process as simple as possible by drawing mostly from the Aid Information Management System. A number of indicators will require modification to the AIMS to ensure this information is collected going forward. A baseline for some of the indicators Page 10

11 is therefore not yet available this year. Annex 1 provides a comprehensive list of the indicators that will be employed against each benchmark, their respective data source and the current status of their availability Implementing the AIMS The Aid Information Management System (AIMS) is an online database for collecting standardised information about all donor-funded projects in South Sudan, hosted within the Department of Aid Coordination in the Finance and Economic Planning. When it was first introduced in 2010, access to AIMS was limited to MOFEP staff. Accordingly, development partners were requested to submit project information through spreadsheets, and the Department of Aid Coordination would manually upload it. The next step in implementing the AIMS was to make it available online to development partners, to allow them to input information themselves regarding their projects, which can be validated by MOFEP. This significantly reduced the burden on the Government, whilst broadening engagement amongst the donor community. In December 2011, MOFEP undertook AIMS training for 30 development partners, and as a result, during the 2012/13 planning and budgeting process, 10 of the 31 reporting partners did so directly on the AIMS. The Government s future plans for developing the AIMS during 2012/13 and beyond are provided in Annex 3. Data requirements for the Aid Information Management System fall into two broad categories: planning data (allocations), and monitoring data (expenditure). 1. Planning Data: this refers to information on funds allocated to projects or programmes that are expected to be disbursed during the course of the financial year (i.e. the overall budget for the project) and information regarding project objectives. Planning data is required at two points in the budget cycle (one initial round of reporting, and a revision): 1) Prior to the commencement of the SWG planning process, development partners should provide indicative financial allocations for the following Financial Year (beginning on 1 st July). The first round of indicative allocations needs to be reported in advance of the annual planning process by 31 st October. 2) During the annual planning process, development partners should provide revised allocations in line with recommendations emerging during the SWG planning process. This should be completed by 31 st January for inclusion in the Budget Sector Plans, and Sector Aid Financing Plans. 2. Monitoring Data: this refers to information on actual funds disbursed and expended through projects or programmes and information on the actual outputs/outcomes of project implementation development partners should provide biannual updates on disbursements and expenditures, within one month of the closure of the second and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. 1) Following the closure of the second quarter of the fiscal year, development partners should provide expenditure information for Q1 Q2 (July December) against all active projects. This should be completed by 31 st January. 2) Following the closure of fourth quarter, development partners should provide expenditure information for Q3 Q4 (January June) against all active projects. Page 11

12 This should be completed by 31 st July for inclusion in the Annual Budget Report and Donor Book. The table below summarises the overall reporting requirements of development partners: Period Planning Data Input Deadline for Planning Data Monitoring Data Input Deadline for Monitoring Data Q1 (July - Sept) None None Expenditure in Q3&Q4 (previous FY) 31st July Q2 (Oct - Dec) Indicative allocations for next FY 31 st October (input into the preliminary NBP) None None Q3 (Jan - March) Revised allocations for next FY 31 st January (for input into BSP&SAFP) Expenditure in Q1&Q2 (current year) 31st January Q4 (April July) None None None None It is worth noting that the Government moved to its fiscal year (July June) in July 2012, but prior to this was planning and budgeting to the calendar year (January December). For this reason, the analysis that follows compares 2012/13 to 2011, as the most recent 12 month period for which we have full AIMS data. Page 12

13 USD Millions 3. Overview of Development Assistance to South Sudan Data provided on the AIMS indicates that levels of aid to South Sudan have remained constant between 2011 and 2012/13, but some of the core problems in its effectiveness continue. In particular, a lack of predictability, both in terms of expenditure and in the provision of medium-term commitments, is continuing to undermine the Government s capacity to plan and budget effectively. At the same time, there is evidence to suggest that fragmentation in aid delivery is increasing. Nominal allocations of development assistance to South Sudan have grown substantially since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005, and are set to continue to grow in 2012/13with USD 1.4bn of commitments reported. However the annual nominal growth rate has decreased dramatically, and between 2011 and 2012/13 stood at 0.8% (see table 1). Table 1. Donor Commitments and Expenditure /14. 1 Year / /14 Commitment 242,362, ,447, ,446, ,630,247 1,279,749,094 1,394,110,792 1,404,908, ,947,956 Expenditure 960,299, ,435,781 Chart 1. Donor Commitments and Expenditure /14. 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Allocations Expenditures This growth is accompanied with a mixed performance across the aid strategy benchmarks (see table 2). One of the guiding principles of the Aid Strategy is predictability (captured jointly under benchmarks 3 and 5) which calls for development partners to disburse annual aid commitments in full, and to provide commitments matched to the government planning process. Regarding this first aspect of predictability, table 1 demonstrates that historically reported expenditure levels have been significantly lower than commitments, and this situation may be deteriorating. In 2011, only 49% of allocated funding was reported as spent, compared to 75% in Furthermore, whilst the lack of predictability in expenditure is clearly visible at the aggregate level, a more complex picture emerges at the donor level. Indeed, table 3 below demonstrates that low expenditure records from a small number of the larger development partners is skewing the expenditure rate for the population as a 1 Full expenditure prior to 2010 is not available. Page 13

14 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support Average No of donors engaged below the USD20m threshold Average number of donors in a sector Average donor allocation to sector (USD m) Average size of aid programmes (USD m) Number of aid programmes Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Number of sectors with an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support Number of sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % of Aid budgeted to SSDP Priority Programmes whole; although the overall percentage of allocated aid reported as spent is 49%, the donor average is a more reasonable 75%. 2 A second dimension of poor predictability is visible in the absence and incompleteness of mediumterm projections. Only 15.3% of agencies provided medium-term projections during the 2012/13 planning process, and for those that did, the scale (and therefore likely comprehensiveness) of those projections was low (table 2 indicates that 2013/14 and 2014/15 projections were on average equivalent to only 27% of 2012/13 projections). The poor predictability of development financing is problematic as it undermines the ability of the Government to plan and budget effectively. Table 2. Aggregate Indicators for the Aid Strategy Benchmarks 3 1: Alignment with Priorities 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3. Aligned with Budget Cycle & PFM systems 5. Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided 89.7% 9 0.0% % 26.6% 49.4% 68.2% % Table 3 overleaf indicates that the development assistance remains fairly concentrated in South Sudan, with 59% of 2011 allocations and 62% of expenditure coming from five development partner agencies. However this statistic masks the growing problem of fragmentation. Fragmentation is a problem at various levels in South Sudan s aid architecture. At the project level, proliferation of projects continues to grow with 419 planned projects reported for 2012/13, compared to 331 in Furthermore, the average project size has fallen from USD 2.8m in 2011 to USD 2.2m in 2012/13. At the level of the sector, development partners continue to operate an excessive number of sectors at relatively low levels. In its revised Aid Strategy, the Government recommends that a donor should only engage bilaterally in a sector if they are providing in excess of $20m to that sector, when a contribution to a single sector amounts to less than $20m, the donor should channel it through a pooled fund, or engage in a silent partnership with other development partners operating in the sector, delegating cooperation to them and working through the lead agency. The Aid Map overleaf indicates none of the bilateral donors are meeting these guidelines consistently across all sectors in their 2012/13 allocations of aid, although the degree of compliance varies substantially. The average number of donors per sector for 2012/13 is 12.4, and on average 10 of those plan to contribute under USD 20m, the recommended threshold for bilateral engagement in a sector. One method of reducing fragmentation would be to channel more funding through pooled funds. 4 On average, the top 12 donors delivered 28% of their aid budgets through pooled funds in 2 Considering the top 15 donors only /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 14

15 2012,down from 33% in 2010, reflecting a general trend towards growing bilateralism. This trend is expected to continue over the course of 2012/13 with the closure of two major pooled funds (MDTF and BSF). Table 3. Top 15 Donors to South Sudan (2011) # Donor Total 2011 Allocations* Total 2011 Expenditures* % Funding to Pooled Funds (2011 allocations) % Committed Funds Spent 1 USA (inc. OFDA) 431,381, ,583,379 0% 25% 2 European Union (inc. ECHO) 124,077,831 61,587,185 12% 50% 3 Canada 104,173,277 91,858,147 10% 88% 4 UK 93,205,071 97,405,704 61% 105% 5 Norway 71,781,080 71,283,208 39% 99% 6 Netherlands 63,174,575 55,815,855 60% 88% 7 Japan 49,499,366 50,123,786 0% 101% 8 Denmark 29,431,872 25,784,516 14% 88% 9 Sweden 26,100,813 27,299,827 72% 105% 10 Germany 24,362,999 4,876,174 7% 20% 11 Australia 16,575,970 15,900,484 5% 96% 12 World Bank 13,437,161 4,186,268 5% 31% 13 Spain 12,323,287 18,146,796 53% 147% 14 Switzerland 7,258,557 3,726,022 0% 51% 15 France 6,439,287 2,164,369 0% 34% # Other Donors 320,888,060 50,694,060 Total: 1,394,110, ,435,781 Chart 2. Breakdown of 2011 Allocations by Donor USA (inc. OFDA) European Union (inc. ECHO) Canada 23% 31% UK Norway Netherlands Japan Denmark Sweden Germany 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% 7% 7% 9% Australia World Bank Spain Switzerland France Other Donors 4 As July 2012, there were 5 pooled funds active in South Sudan: Multi Donor Trust Fund, South Sudan Recovery Fund, Basic Services Fund, Common Humanitarian Fund and Capacity Building Trust Fund. In 2012/13 the Health Pooled Fund is expected to become active, whilst the Multi Donor Trust Fund and Basic Services Fund will both close. Page 15

16 Table 4. South Sudan Aid Map (2012/13 Allocations) Page 16

17 4. Sector Analysis Table 5. Aid by SSDP Pillar and Sector /15 Chart 3. Projected Aid Allocations by Sector 2012/13 (USD) Table 5 and Chart 4 above give an overview of aid by sector and pillar, as defined in the South Sudan Development Plan. The three sectors receiving most aid in 2012/13 are set to be Social and Humanitarian Affairs, Health and Infrastructure, which all have allocations in excess of USD 240m and together account for 52% of commitments. These are traditional donor sectors, and noted priority sectors for aid financing as highlighted in the SSDP. Commitments to the Education sector are significantly lower at USD 141m. Page 17

18 A large portion of the growth in allocations is in the Infrastructure sector, which has seen 123% growth in commitments between 2011 and 2012/13, driven mostly by increased investment in roads (see section 4.5). Infrastructure also has more comprehensive multiyear projections than most sectors accounting for 15% and 79% of 2013/14 and 2014/15 total allocations respectively. This is in part due to the profile of projects in the Infrastructure sector, which tend to include more large multi-year investments. Commitments to the Social and Humanitarian Affairs sector, by contrast, fell by 33%percent between 2011 and 2012/13. This trend may be surprising to see given that the oil shut down in January prompted a number of donors to increase their humanitarian budgets, 5 in the expectation that austerity measures could undermine the Government s ability to provide basic services. However, 2012/13 allocations were provided by donors in April, when the fiscal situation was unclear and before many of the donors had confirmed any programme adjustments. Table 6 provides a baseline of all available sector-level indicators for the aid strategy benchmarks. At present, no indicators have been collected for benchmark 4 aid supports institutional capacity and systems. (In the future, new indicators will be measured for this benchmark from data collected through the AIMS. Annex 1 provides a full list of all benchmark indicators, definitions and data sources.) This year s indicator results are intended to provide a baseline on which future year s progress can be assessed. Performance against the aid strategy benchmarks varies significantly by sector. In terms of the predictability of aid as supported through the provision of medium-term projections, Infrastructure is one of the best performing sectors with 60% of donors providing allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15. This may be in part related to the profile of infrastructure investments, which tend to be multi-year. However the best performing sector is economic functions, where 75% of partners have provided medium-term commitments, significantly higher than any other sector. In contrast, in the Security and Social and Humanitarian Affairs sectors only 25% and 22% of partners respectively provided two and three year indicative commitments. In the latter, this may in part be due to the ad-hoc nature of crisis-response, but donors should note that such short-term planning horizons undermine the Government s capacity to plan and budget effectively. The second aspect of predictability that is the performance of donors in spending annual aid commitments in full paints a very different picture. In the Economic Functions sector, on average only 23% of donor funds are reported as spent. Better performance is registered in the Health and Education sectors, where 70% and 73% of funds were reported as spent respectively. The degree of fragmentation also varies at the sector level. Fragmentation is the most prominent in the Social and Humanitarian Affairs sector, where 16 development partners are reported as having committed funds for 2012/13, 14 of which intend to contribute relatively low levels (defined as less that USD 20m). Furthermore less than 2% of funding to the sector is being channelled through pooled funds, despite the existence of three active pooled funds (South Sudan Recovery Fund, Multidonor Trust Fund and the Common Humanitarian Fund). The Health sector in contrast has 17 reported donors, but efforts have been made to reduce fragmentation with 21% of funds channelled 5 Some partners increased their budget to the sector through an absolute rise in their overall budget; others reallocated funds from development programmes to humanitarian support. Page 18

19 through pooled funds, due in large part to the Basic Service Fund and the upcoming establishment of the Health Pooled Fund. Generally, performance against benchmark 1 is strong with most aid aligned to national priorities. Improvements could be made in the Health and Accountability sectors however, where only 70% and 57% of aid is aligned to priority programme areas as identified in the SSDP. Across the board, more progress needs to be made in benchmark 2- aid is management by Government and uses Government systems. Currently no aid to South Sudan is channelled through Government systems, however the Local Services Support Aid Instrument is being set up to channel donors funds through the State conditional transfers to finance indispensable inputs and processes at facility and county levels. The LSSAI is currently designed to operate in three windows, education, health and small scale infrastructure, so its employment could improve performance against benchmark two in those sectors going forward. In particular, the Government anticipates the use of this instrument in the Local Governance and Service Delivery Programme in 2013/14. This will channel donor funds (IDA and other bilateral contributions) to local Governments for small-scale infrastructure projects. The following pages look at each of the 10 sectors in turn, and provide an overview of the aid activity and baseline performance against the aid strategy benchmarks. This is complemented by narrative provided in the Sector Aid Financing Plans, which were produced by sector working groups during the 2012/13 planning and budgeting process. All donors and spending agencies in a sector were asked to contribute to the Sector Aid Financing Plan, although ultimate responsibility for drafting and submission lies with the lead donor (or sector co-chair). In some cases incomplete plans were submitted to Finance and Economic Planning, and where this is the case, it is noted that the sector did not report. 2012/13 was the first year for completing sector aid financing plans, the Ministry hopes that next year each sector will provide a full submission. Page 19

20 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support Average size of aid programmes (USD m) No of donors engaged below the USD20m threshold in the sector. Average donor allocation to sector % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on activities & outputs in the SAFP Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % of Aid budgeted to SSDP Priority Programmes Number of aid programmes Number of donors in sector Table 6. Sector-level Aid Strategy Benchmarks 6 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with Budget Cycle & PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Sector Accountability % Y 0.0% N 42.9% 36.0% 25.0% 54.9% 75.3% 0.0% % Economic Functions % Y 0.0% N 75.0% 59.6% 0.0% 22.8% 85.3% 0.0% % Education % Y 0.0% Y 42.9% 23.9% 100% 72.8% 85.3% 2.3% % Health % Y 0.0% Y 41.2% 22.3% 0.0% 69.3% 47.4% 2.5% % Infrastructure % Y 0.0% Y 60.0% 27.9% 0.0% 60.6% 67.1% 3.2% % Natural Resources % Y 0.0% Y 42.1% 19.8% 0.0% 41.3% 78.4% 1.2% % Public Administration % Y 0.0% Y 50.0% 28.2% 94.1% 54.1% 79.7% 0.0% % Rule of Law % Y 0.0% N 33.3% 34.5% 62.5% 62.0% 47.0% 0.0% % Security % N 0.0% N 22.2% 36.5% 0.0% 56.6% 46.3% 0.0% % Social & Humanitarian % Y 0.0% N 25.0% 24.7% 57.8% 27.3% 75.7% 1.7% % /13 unless stated otherwise. Page 20

21 4.1. Accountability Chair: National Bureau of Statistics Co. Chair: DFID Chart 4. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 7. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The RSS Aid Strategy encourages development partners to align assistance with the government s priorities as reflected in the SSDP. Donors are supporting the Finance and Economic Planning in its priority areas through the following programmes: Page 21

22 USAID provides capacity building in budget preparation and budget execution, specifically the Financial Management Information System (FMIS). USAID also supports MoFEP on fiscal decentralization options and the state transfer system, as well as revenue policy and administration. The UK supports MoFEP by providing technical assistance through the ODI Fellowship Programme, which deploys junior economists into civil service role to fill critical gaps. In addition, DFID also provides support to ODI s Budget Strengthening Initiative, which supports planning and budgeting processes; development of aid management processes; and strengthened financial management systems. DFID also supports the development of customs revenue collection through TradeMark East Africa. CBTF, whose focus has included work with MoFEP on debt analysis and options, as well as support to the Government Accountancy Training Centre to develop a curricula for and to train auditors to strengthen internal audit capacity. Japan has focused on building capacity of customs officials, strengthening revenue collection capacity and accountability Norway are supporting MoFEP to enhance overall macro-economic management; UNDP, who have focused upon financial management and aid management systems, including state level PFM systems, including state level internal audit; The World Bank, which has included support to the Procurement Unit to strengthen government-wide procurement systems. AfDB plan to support Internal Audit; Customs and Excise; and the Aid Coordination and Management Unit. Other key RSS accountability institutions receive aid funding to improve the quality of and expand priority aspects of their work: The Anti-Corruption Commission (SSACC) works towards reducing the incidence of corruption in South Sudan. It has received support from the US government in the form of Technical Assistance and policy advice, and UNDP has also provided support to strengthening the investigation capacity. Several donors, including UNDP, UNODC, the CBTF and the EU intend to support the SSAC in The National Audit Chamber (NAC) aims to increase transparency and enlarge accountability of all three levels of government - to civil society and legislatures - on efficient and effective use of public funds. The Multi Donor Trust Fund has supported the National Audit Chamber with training and Technical Assistance to carry out government audits for the years from 2006 to 2009 (all completed) and the 2010 audit is being prepared awaiting submission of key documents. The African Development Bank, EU, UNDP and CBTF are planning Technical Assistance and material support for the 2012/13 budgeting period. The Fiscal and Financial Allocation and Monitoring Commission (SSFFAMC) aims at having improved the monitoring and policy inputs of inter-governmental fiscal transfers by reviewing and submitting to Government two programme areas in each of the ten states. USAID support to fiscal decentralization involves the SSFFAMC in policy and formula development. Page 22

23 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Overview of Sector Aid Aid to the accountability sector is set to fall by 16% between 2011 and 2012/13. The majority (70%) of 2012/13 commitments go to two programme areas: Economic Management and Accountability. Economic Management and Financial Management are receiving a decreasing share and volume of aid, which does not reflect development partner s commitment to strengthen national PFM systems as noted in the benchmarks narrative below. None of the programme areas have any medium term projections pointing to a lack of predictability in aid financing in the sector. Table 8. Benchmark Indicators 7 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 56.8 Yes 0 No Given that CBTF is set to become increasingly active in the accountability sector in 2012/13, the fact that only 8.8% of allocations are to be channelled through pooled funding mechanisms indicates that development partners could do a lot more do reduce fragmentation in the sector. Furthermore, with an average 75% deviation between expenditure and planned allocation at the project level, predictability also needs to improve. Finally, donors in this sector should aim to improve the alignment of their support to SSDP priorities (which include for example, support to financial management). Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans As outlined above, development partners align their aid to the accountability sector institutions closely to the SSDP Governance Pillar objectives by prioritising capacity building and core governance functions as the priority areas of support and by providing targeted support to the accountability sector priorities. A large part of the Accountability institutions benefit from external aid and Technical Assistance. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems Given South Sudan s recently acquired Independence, most aid has not been channelled through Government systems, largely because PFM systems are not adequately strong so as to manage /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 23

24 fiduciary risk; however, a substantial part of the aid provided to the Accountability sector is directly supporting strengthening government systems to manage financial flows in a transparent and accountable manner. As these systems develop and become more robust, the Government hopes to see a transition into financing models such as budget support. The aid provided to the Accountability sector benefits from an open and transparent dialogue between international partners and recipient institutions. Capacity building interventions and hardware support is designed in close cooperation with the RSS institutions and reflect advice from government counterparts and lessons learnt from other countries on how best to support strengthening of core government functions outlined in this sector. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems This sector contains the main institutions for channeling aid through Government Public Financial Management (PFM) systems. Thus, the development of human and institutional capacity of this sector is key to achieving the goal of channeling aid through Government PFM systems. These systems need strengthening at all levels of Government central, state, county. For example, technical assistance to MoFEP will strengthen functions such as budget preparation, budget execution (including commitment controls), procurement, reporting and accounting, and internal audit. Support to the NBS will assist in ensuring that development planning and budgeting become evidence-based; and support to institutions such as SSACC and NAC will ensure independent oversight of Government financial allocations, and drive up transparency and accountability. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Given that RSS in 2011 has introduced a new budget cycle from July to June, which has replaced the previous calendar budget cycle (January-December), aid is not actually aligned to this cycle. The RSS Aid Strategy has as a goal that development partners in future will channel aid through Government PFM systems. This goal is based, in part, on the premise that channeling aid in such a way in itself builds capacity. Accordingly, much effort on the part of both the Government and development partners is being applied to strengthen PFM fiduciary systems and to build robust human and institutional PFM capacity, as discussed above Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes The Accountability Sector is characterised by a high level of joint analysis and understanding of weaknesses, strengths, gaps and impediments between Government institutions and development partners. Aid is consistently targeting stated Core Government functions and priorities (as explained in section 2) and TA is provided to strengthen the ownership and capacity building impact of the recipient institutions. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided There are multiple development partners providing assistance to some of the larger institutions in this sector, such as MoFEP, NBS, SSACC and NAC. MoFEP s Action Plan provides an opportunity to achieve greater donor coherence and avoid fragmentation since it provides for Page 24

25 identification of a lead donor in each MoFEP function (macroeconomic analysis, revenue, tax, budget functions, procurement, audit, etc.). In addition, an active PFM donor coordination group meets regularly to enhance coordination amongst donors in this sector. There is a general feeling that despite many donor actors looking to support priority areas within the sector, coordination mechanisms are becoming stronger and the government institutions are increasingly in the driver s seat when aid is being formulated, as more aid is aligned to individual institutions strategic plans. The SSACC and the NAC have expressed interest in organising specific donor meetings for their institutions, which is an important step to ensure coherence and synergies of pipeline aid. The addition of CBTF as a large donor in the sector for 12/13 should help reduce fragmentation if some smaller partners seek to channel their support through the pooled fund. Page 25

26 4.2. Economic Functions Chair: Telecommunications and Postal Services Co. Chair: World Bank Chart 5. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 9. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The Government of Norway s support to the Economic Functions sector consists of the following components: institutional cooperation in the areas of resource management, revenue management, and environmental management; and commodity assistance to strengthen South Sudan s ability to make use of its increased capacity. Furthermore, as requested by the Electricity and Dams, Norway will also support South Sudan to develop and manage necessary policies, bills and regulations to develop and operate the Fula Rapids Hydropower Project. Page 26

27 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding The World Bank s framework for assistance to the Economic Functions is designed to strengthen core functions for managing resource dependence. The objective of the program activities is to by strengthening three institutions: the Petroleum and Mining, Finance and Economic Planning, and the South Sudan Legislative Assembly (in particular it s Economy, Development and Finance and Public Accounts Committees). Overview of Sector Aid Aid to the Economic Functions sector is set to grow by USD 7.4m this year, with a 22% rise in allocations between 2011 and 2012/13. Planned commitments indicate that trend is set to continue into 2013/14. This growth is driven by increased allocations to two programme areas: creating a conducive environment for trade and private sector development, and power management and development, which together account for 95% of 2012/13 commitments. By contrast, developing mining and energy sector, access to public information and improving telecommunications and the postal service receive low levels of donor assistance. Table 10. Benchmark Indicators 8 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 Y 0 N Although Economic Functions is one of the smaller sectors in terms of volume of aid flows, aid is closely aligned to the sectoral priorities as outlined in the SSDP. However the predictability of this financing is relatively poor, in that only 22.8% of reported aid allocations were reported as spent in 2011, the lowest out of all the sectors, and average percentage deviations in expenditure from plan stood was over 85%. At the same time, the sector performed well in terms of the provision of medium-term commitments, with 75% of donors providing comprehensive projections beyond 2012/13. Indeed, it is the only sector where 2013/14 projections exceed 2012/13 allocations. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Not reported /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 27

28 4.3. Education Chair: General Education and Instruction Co. Chair: USAID Chart 6. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 11. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The objective of the education component of the SSDP is to ensure equitable participation in a rapidly expanding and quality education system geared to promoting sustainable development throughout South Sudan. The SSDP further outlines five programme priority areas as key intervention considerations to enhance realization of SSDP objectives: (i) enhancing education quality; (ii) increasing access and improving efficiency of the education system; (iii) enhancing literacy and alternative education;(iv) enhancing institutional and human capacity; and (v) expanding access to quality higher education. These SSDP-identified programme priority areas have informed the ongoing development of the General Education Strategic Plan (GESP). The major donors, active in the education sector are working with MoGEI and MoHERST to achieve the development objectives set out in the SSDP: Page 28

29 UNICEF has commenced the implementation of a two year Country Programme Plan of Action for that will focus on enhancing education quality, increasing access and improving efficiency of the educational system, supporting life skills programmes, financing capacity development initiatives at all levels, and support efforts to increase completion rates at primary and secondary levels. USAID s on-going and planned interventions support the following SSDP priorities: enhancing education quality; increasing access and improving efficiency of the educational system; enhancing institutional and human capacity, and expanding access to quality higher education. The overall objective of DFID support to the education sector in South Sudan is to transform a generation through education. DFID has prioritized girls education, alternative education for out of school children, textbooks printing and distribution and schools construction as priority areas for investment. At the same time, DFID is engaged in policy development and high level engagement in education. The European Union is in the process of designing and negotiating a three year programme, estimated at $15 million, anticipated to commence in late September. The objective of the three-year Improved Management of Education Delivery programme is to strengthen education service delivery and the purpose is to manage education delivery more effectively and efficiently through strengthening capacities and increasing access to education, mainly at State and County levels. JICA has been providing assistance for in-service teacher training for science and math with curriculum development of these subjects as continuous professional development of teachers. UNESCO s support of the Education Sector in South Sudan primarily focuses on capacity development of partners and on improving quality and access of post-primary and adult education, specifically by enhancing literacy rates and promoting peace education in conflictaffected States. World Food Programme s School Meals activity aims to reduce short-term hunger among primary school children through a hot meal. Other objectives include promoting attendance and retention of pupils who might otherwise miss the opportunity to learn. Overview of Sector Aid The AIMS data presented in the table below indicates the slight projected increase of aggregate donor support to the sector in the short-term, with overall allocations growing by 16% between 2011 and 2012/13. Medium term projections are weak, with 2013/14 allocations only 55% of the level reported for 2011 allocation and no projections provided for 2014/15. The low projections may be due to partial reporting from donors, and may indicate challenges that donors may have in terms of out-year projections of aid commitments. Page 29

30 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Table 12. Benchmark Indicators 9 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 Yes 0 Yes Indicator results for benchmark 1 imply that aid to the education sector is perfectly aligned to SSDP priorities for the sector, but this is in part due to the relative broad nature of the programmes in the sector. At the aggregate level, the degree of predictability of aid appears to be strong, with over 70% of 2011 aid allocations reported as spent (the highest of all sectors). However this masks substantial variation at the project-level, with an average 85% deviation in expenditure from plan. The sector is also fragmented, 11 of the 14 donors engaged bilaterally at relatively low levels (below USD 20m a year) and only 5.6% of funds are allocated through pooled funding mechanisms. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans The SSDP provides the overarching framework for the design, delivery and implementation of aid supported interventions in the education sector while the General Education Strategic Plan (GESP)will provide specific interventions and activities and will serve as the main operational and reference document determining the extent of alignment between sector priorities and aid mechanisms. Donors have been instrumental in supporting the MoGEI in translating the objectives of the SSDP into specific development interventions and activities in the GESP. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems Aid is presently managed directly by respective donor institutions through third party implementers and other external fund management arrangements. In the short term, it is not anticipated that aid will be channelled through and managed directly by RSS using existing PFM systems. Donors, however, remain committed in supporting the government in agreeing benchmarks regarding fiduciary risk management and fund flows to lower government operational/administrative entities at the State and County levels that would allow the use of PFM systems for the direct management of aid delivery by the government. In this regard donors are working towards building the required capacity and strengthening of existing institutional structures and systems at the central, state and county levels to effectively plan, manage, monitor and evaluate the outcomes of education delivery /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 30

31 mechanisms and services. Increasingly, government counterparts are taking the lead in the design and delivery of training programs. In the meantime some donor institutions, including USAID and the EU are engaged in the design of piloting aid delivery mechanisms where funds will be channelled directly through and to lower operational/administrative structure. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems Donor interventions have capacity development components built into their design with the objective of strengthening education service delivery at all levels of government. Ongoing and planned institutional capacity and systems strengthening interventions are aimed at enhancing capacity of central and state ministries of education in planning, management and monitoring of education plans, programs and resources by enhancing competencies of staff, establishing procedures and systems and upgrading facilities needed to perform targeted institutional functions, including strengthening of school community linkages and partnerships. Other interventions include embedding experienced technical advisors at central and state ministries of education to work alongside counterparts, mentor and model enabling professional practices. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems As indicated under Benchmark 2 above, donors are committed to supporting the strengthening of government PFM systems and channelling of aid through these systems when fiduciary risk management benchmarks have been reached in the future. Aid is presently managed directly by respective donor institutions. Although progress has been slow, donors are cooperating with RSS in providing the required information for the AIMS database established by MoFEP. Provision of AIMS data will enhance the annual resource estimate processes for preparation of the RSS budget and also ensure that donor resources are captured in budget performance reports. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes As discussed under Benchmark 1, aid is aligned with and oriented to the achievement of development objectives established in the SSDP. Donor activities have as a design requirement, considerations for the measurement and reporting of results to demonstrate contribution of aid interventions to achievement of RSS targets. Increasingly, donors are incorporating human capacity and institutional strengthening interventions in aid supported activities to ensure that available structures and systems are able to deliver results and enhance sustainability. The Education Management Information System (EMIS) is supported by donors with the objective of strengthening capacity to produce and use education information to support education planning, management and monitoring of education development results at central and state levels. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided Donor investments are designed and implemented within the framework of the SSDP to ensure that Aid directly contributes to government-led and established development objectives and targets. To avoid fragmentation, donors regularly engage the sector ministries regarding progress and design of new activities. The donors, as a group, coordinate their activities through the education donor group. The establishment of the education SWG, providing a forum bringing together all major stakeholders in the education sector, will enhance the planning and coordination of implementation of Aid interventions to minimize fragmentation. Page 31

32 4.4. Health Chair: Health Co. Chair: CIDA Chart 7. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 13. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The priorities for aid funding in the health sector during the 2012/13 fiscal year are drawn from the programme areas prioritized in the Health Sector Development Plan (HSDP). The HSDP priorities are in turn informed by the SSDP priority actions for the health sector which is to equitably expand access to quality basic health services throughout South Sudan. The major interventions to address the SSDP health sector core objectives include rehabilitation and equipping facilities at all levels of the health system; strengthening human resources for health; and improving pharmaceutical and medical equipment supply chain. A flexible approach will be needed to respond to new gaps generated as a result of the austerity budget. Page 32

33 To achieve the aspirations of the SSDP health sector core objectives, the HSDP outlines a priority framework that is aligned to the six elements of the health system as outlined by the World Health Organisation. The financial and technical support of the donors will therefore align to and complement the programmes of the Health, in implementing the strategic actions for each of the priority areas of the HSDP. The priorities supported by Partners can be summarized as follows: Service delivery: Partners support will contribute to the continuation and possible improvement of access, use, and quality of primary health care services in line with the Basic Package of Health and Nutrition Services of South Sudan. Emphasis will also be placed on Basic and Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care services, and support to service delivery during humanitarian situations shall be maintained. Health work force: Partners will help build the capacity of the health workforce through support to the National Health Training Institutes, and support for in-service training. International NGO s will continue to provide significant (technical and financial) contribution to the health workforce in South Sudan. Once agreed benchmarks are reached, the Local Services Support Aid Instrument will allow the transfer of donor funds for health worker salaries through government systems, thus increasing the government s health work force. Information: Partners will promote and support the use of strategic information for decision making in South Sudan. This will include strengthening the Health Management Information System; the integrated disease surveillance and response system; as well as other periodic health surveys. Partners will support the harmonization of the various Health monitoring mechanisms. Efforts will be made to improve community understanding of health services. In addition, institutionalization of health sector performance will be supported by conducting regular Annual Performance Reviews. Medical supplies and drugs: The provision of drugs is the primary responsibility of the government and the Health has started to budget pharmaceuticals since the 2011 budget. However, the RSS austerity measures will hamper the full funding for drugs within the government budget for 2012/2013. Partners will continue to compliment the efforts of government by contributing to the supply of vaccines, drugs and equipment through various initiatives. Support for emergency drug kits and supplies during humanitarian situations shall continue to be provided by partners, such as the emergency medicines fund, led by DFID Overview of Sector Aid Funding to the health sector is set to remain at a fairly constant level, with 2012/13 allocations growing by USD 27m between 2011 and 2012/13. 64% of commitments are for primary health care, which is in line with the priorities for aid funding set out in the SSDP, a share which has stayed pretty constant since last year (66%).Support for human resources and health has seen a significant jump in allocations (56%), whilst in contrast a significant shift in aid resources away from HIV/AIDS, pharmaceutical and equipment oversight and secondary health care can be identified. Page 33

34 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Table 14. Benchmark Indicators 10 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 69.2 Yes 0 Yes Significant efforts have been made to reduce fragmentation in the health sector; over 20% of funds for the sector have been allocated to pooled funds, the highest level out of all sectors. Critical in this is the Health Pooled Fund, which is set to be operational in late However with 12 of the 17 donors bilaterally allocating less than USD 20m, there is further room for progress in this regard. Health sector is also one of the better performing sectors in terms of aid predictability, with 69% of aid reported as spent in Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans Aid to the health sector is based on and aligned to the goals and objectives of the Health Sector Development Plan (HSDP), which is in turn informed by the SSDP. The HSDP sets out the medium term strategic direction for the health sector, providing the framework that will guide actions and interventions of all stakeholders over the next five years. Donors, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health will progressively institutionalize periodic reviews of progress in implementing the HSDP. A common framework of indicators to track progress will be developed and all these will be the basis of guiding dialogue during the joint review missions and annual health sector performance reports. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems While donors aspire to channel funding through government systems, this will not be possible until there has been significant improvement in government systems, particularly in public financial management. Building the capacity of RSS systems so that aid can be delivered through those systems is a long term process that requires mutual commitment from both Partners and RSS. Following the international commitments made in Busan in 2011 for the New Deal, as well as the South Sudan Development Plan and Aid Strategy, Partners are committed to supporting RSS to progressively assume leadership and ownership of health service delivery. As donors transition from ad hoc approaches, health programming will also increasingly include capacity building elements that will strengthen the ability of government to manage aid. For example, the three service delivery /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 34

35 projects (USAID, WB, HPF) all include commitments to build the capacity of Health to the degree possible, to monitor and coordinate the delivery of health services. Health will be a pilot for the MoFEP proposed Local Services Support Aid Instrument (LSSAI). Before donor funding can be channelled through the LSSAI, a series of benchmarks must be identified and met at central, state, and county levels. These benchmarks will include development of relevant policies and plans, including robust monitoring procedures, to track and manage finances transparently at all levels from central government to health facility and community level. Once these benchmarks have been met partners can move towards channeling funds through government systems. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems Development Partners have supported the Health capacity in policy and strategic plans development through provision of technical support, funding and collectively participating in these processes. The most recent example is the completion of the HSDP that was done with support and participation of donors. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Health donors and the Health through the health SWG shall progressively explore mechanisms to periodically assess the RSS arrangements and procedures for public financial management including criteria for sector allocations, accounting, auditing and procurement. The SWG will develop a framework for assessing progress towards ensuring that the PFM systems are reliable, transparent and accountable and ultimately upon satisfactory performance, explore ways of channeling aid through the government PFM system. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes Development Partners and Government progressively ensure that the budgeting process is linked to the annual plans for implementing the HSDP. This fiscal year the budgeting process has not explicitly been linked to the HSDP as the operational plan of the HSDP is yet to be developed. Once developed, subsequent budgeting processes shall be linked to the HSDP operational plans, such that resources are allocated to specific interventions which are tracked by indicators outlined in the plan. During regular review of performance, expenditures will then be linked to the extent to which the indicator targets were met. Subsequently decisions could be made how future financial support shall be allocated based on the level of attainment of the outcomes. The SWG will also explore development of a common monitoring and evaluation framework that tracks expenditures against the outputs and outcomes attained. This would then be used to inform subsequent aid allocations to and within the sector Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided Historically, health programming has been fragmented, but this is changing. One key example is the three projects that will support primary health care (USAID, World Bank, HPF). In a workshop in November 2011, the three donors and the Health agreed that these three programmes would support a single Basic Package of Health Services. Page 35

36 4.5. Infrastructure Chair: Water Resources and Irrigation Co. Chair: African Development Bank Chart 8. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 15. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) 80% of poor households in South Sudan are dependent on agriculture as their main source of livelihood, so tackling poverty, agricultural sector growth needs to be a priority including access to markets. The SSDP states that given scarcity of available resources, prioritisation is essential and lists six priority budget areas, one of which is infrastructure. In this context, infrastructure should be viewed as an enabler of agricultural sector growth. The SSDP appears to imply a broad delineation of roles for the public and private sectors. For the public sector, the following are the priorities: Page 36

37 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Roads and road transport development; Air, river and rails development; Water resources, management, development, utilisation and provision of sanitation services; Housing development and physical planning. In terms of the ranking of the priority areas of intervention for the public sector, roads and road transport will receive high priority in resource allocation and followed by water resources management, development, utilisation and provision of sanitary services. The following are tabled as the development related priorities for the private sector investment: Development of energy, mineral and mining sectors, including oil and electricity; and Establishment and improvement of telecommunications, postal services and information technology. Overview of Sector Aid (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Overall, allocations to the infrastructure sector are set to more than double between 2011 and 2012/13, a welcome trend given the urgent need for investment in the sector, which is seen to be one of the most critical obstacles to development in South Sudan. The summary table presents an encouraging trend for the 2012/13 Plan and projections beyond that date, with regard to the alignment of the medium term allocation of resources by development partners and the SSDP priorities (SSDP priorities are Roads and Road Development, followed by Air/River/Rail Transport, Urban Water and Sanitation and then Housing Development and Physical Planning). While the 2011/2012 Plan had allocated 59% of total resources to Roads and Road Development, this is set to increase to 71% in 2012/13. The indicative projections for 2013/14 and 2014/15 suggest a similar alignment with SSDP priority programmes. Table 16. Benchmark Indicators 11 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 Yes 0 Yes /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 37

38 Whilst aid to the sector is closely aligned to national priorities, the table above demonstrates the need for improvement in terms of the focus on results of infrastructure development assistance. In particular, the predictability of aid financing could be improved, with only 61% of allocations reported as spent in 2011, and no projects reporting on planned and actual activities in the Sector Aid Financing Plan. There is also room to reduce fragmentation in the sector; given the large costs often associated with infrastructure projects, it is perhaps surprising that only 3.2% of programmes disbursed more than USD 20m last year. For this purpose, the Finance and Economic Planning has proposed the establishment of a Rapid Infrastructure Delivery Fund, an innovative aid instrument that will provide a mechanism for attracting Government and development partner resources into a common framework which will identify, prioritise, finance and implement the Governments key infrastructure investments. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans Each government agency and donor will be expected to ensure that for any fiscal year, their budget items and corresponding funding is in line with the SSDP priorities and government s implementing Strategy as revised annually by the guidelines and budget ceilings provided by the Council of Ministers. The co-chairs of the Sector Working Group will work with their respective sides to ensure compliance. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems Subject to the outcome of any fiduciary review of a relevant government infrastructure implementing agency, donors should clearly state their main concerns and agree with government how these concerns would be addressed and include a time-bound implementing plan. Each aid package should have a component that is designed to address any identified fiduciary challenges. The Busan principle of shared risk among partners will guide the design of mitigating fiduciary safeguards. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems Given the widespread institutional capacity challenges in the infrastructure sector in South Sudan, each donor aid delivery mechanism should have some component that supports the strengthening of institutional capacity and systems. Institutional capacity enhancement should not be restricted to fiduciary and governance spheres only. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Within the limits of the donors financial year and aid cycles, aid to the RSS should be programmed in such a way as to facilitate budget planning for both the short and medium term. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes Page 38

39 All aid delivery should be aligned to identifiable, measurable and achievable outcomes and not only to outputs. In cases where the attribution of outcomes could be an issue, intermediate outcomes should be agreed with government and other donors where applicable. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided Each donor should, provide government and other donors with their aid envelope for a defined medium term period and where possible, the earmarked infrastructure programmes to facilitate government planning and co-financing by other donors. The planned aid should also be disaggregated into fiscal years consistent with the RSS budget calendar. Page 39

40 4.6. Natural Resources and Rural Development Chair: Land Commission Co. Chair: EU Chart 9. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 17. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The overall goal for the Natural Resources sector as identified by the SSDP is to ensure food security and improve livelihoods and income generation for the people of South Sudan, through sustainable use of natural resources and land management. This should be achieved through the implementation of programs with objectives focused on: Extending and upgrading transport infrastructure, especially roads Page 40

41 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Ensuring that there is a stable, transparent and supportive policy and regulatory environment for private sector development Improving access to extension and veterinary services, basic farming tools, inputs and markets Clarifying issues pertaining to land to ensure access and tenure Deepening and broadening financial services Overview of Sector Aid Overall, funding to the Natural Resources sector is set to increase between 2011 and 2012/13, with allocations to the sector rising by 5%. Of the five program areas in the Natural Resources sector, three consistently receive the majority of the funding (agriculture and forestry, wildlife and tourism, and cooperatives and rural development). Environmental Management, Animal Resources and Fisheries, and Land Management consistently receive low levels of support. In 2011 and 2012/13, the largest share of commitments has gone to Agriculture and Forestry (48% and 53% respectively), however 2011 expenditure was actually greatest in the Wildlife and Tourism programme area due to poor predictability of aid financing (and/or incomplete expenditure reporting) for Agriculture and Forestry. Projections for 2013/14 see most aid allocated to Agriculture and Forestry and Cooperatives and Rural Development, with allocations to Wildlife and Tourism tapering off rapidly. No or negligible allocations are provided for 2014/15 across all programme areas. Table 18. Benchmark Indicators 12 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 Yes 0 Yes Performance against Benchmark 5 in the sector is relatively poor, indicating poor predictability and a lack of focus on outcomes. In particular, average percentage project deviation in expenditure from plan is over 78%. This is probably in part due to incomplete reporting on expenditure, which should be improved alongside reporting on activities. 18% of 2012/13 allocations to the sector are through pooled funding mechanisms (MDTF, BSF and CHF), however with the two largest of these (MDTF and BSF) are due to end at the end of 2012, there is a risk of growing fragmentation going forward /13 unless otherwise stated. 13 Year round meetings are planned for 2012/13 for the first time. Page 41

42 Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans Considering the various limitations of the cooperation mechanisms in place, the formulation of all projects included in the EU Special Fund for South Sudan have taken into consideration existing sector policies and strategic priorities in all supported sectors. In particular the Governments South Sudan Development Plan was the document of reference for the formulation of the Fund. In addition, aid is aligned to the policies and priorities of the relevant government agencies such as Agriculture and Fisheries. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems At present, Government does not usually directly manage development partner supported projects. This is largely due to Government institutions and systems being relatively new. Investment is required in systems and capacity to effectively manage, monitor and evaluate programs. Most Development Partners are very interested in addressing these issues by contributing to the enhancement of government systems and improving government capacity to effectively manage aid. For example, the EU Special Fund does not foresee the use of Government financial systems for delivery of aid. However the EU remains committed in supporting the Government in reaching common agreed benchmarks that would allow for such aid modality. Moreover the Special Fund is working towards building the capacity of some line Ministries to plan, manage, monitor and evaluate the provision of services. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems The South Sudan rural development program SORUDEV will strengthen policy implementation and strategic planning capacity of the Government by: Establishing an effective Food Security institutional framework Developing the capacity to review, plan, budget and monitor Food Security policies and strategies Establishing an effective cross-sectoral food security institutional framework Strengthening food security information systems to support decision-making. JICA s program will contribute significantly to strengthening capacity of South Sudanese counterparts both technically and institutionally. In areas where potential overlap is envisaged, necessary measure will be taken to promote synergy. JICA will work closely with the EU to avoid duplication of activities intended to strengthen capacity of Government in budgeting, planning, monitoring. The German supported value chain program has the objective of capacity development focused on identifying the most promising value chains/ supply lines and initiating a process of coordinated support and investment under the leadership of Agriculture. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Page 42

43 EU aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle in the sense that we envisage activities to start in summer, in line with the Government Budget Cycle. However, the Governments PFM systems are not yet operational. The EU remains committed to support the RSS PFM system either in the line ministries or at a central level. JICA s support, both present and future, will be aligned to the budget cycle of the RSS. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes Concerning SORUDEV, the strengthening of capacities in information management, coordination and planning at central and state level are expected to translate into more consistent extension service provision and policy implementation. This is expected to have an impact on agricultural production and food security. Complementing these capacity building actions, at least 180 Km of feeder roads will be rehabilitated, linking markets to production areas. JICA support is aimed at achieving specific targets. These include the number of officials trained at Yei Crop Training Centre, production of Comprehensive Agriculture and Irrigation Development Master Plan documents, and Sector Investment Plans with realistic budgets. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided The most relevant sector coordination initiative takes place through the Sector Working Groups which bring together all major stakeholders and to which the EU is contributing. Major donors are constantly coordinating with each other through sector working groups (notably Natural Resources and Rural Development (NRRD)Donor Group) in order to avoid duplication, fragmentation and build synergies. Some donors, like JICA, do not currently participate in a pooled fund mechanism. However effort is made to ensure a close collaboration during program design and implementation Page 43

44 4.7. Public Administration Chair: Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Co. Chair: UNDP Chart 10. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 19. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programmeover the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Public Administration is one of the Sectors in the SSDP Governance Pillar, along with the accountability sector. The SSDP identified support to capacity building and support to core governance functions as the top priorities for aid financing in the Governance Pillar. Page 44

45 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Support to Core Governance Functions: The Priority Core Governance Functions are Executive Leadership, Rule of Law and Law Enforcement, Judiciary Management, Public Administration and Natural Resources Management. Both the Executive Leadership and Public Administration core functions are the priorities of the Public Administration Sector. The priority for Public administration is the establishment of mechanisms for management of civil service at both RSS and state levels. Support to capacity building: Capacity building is intrinsic to public administration. Capacity building in the Public Administration Sector mean 'strengthening the skills and aptitudes of public servants across all agencies. The skills and aptitudes that are required and missing at the moment in this sector includes, literacy, computer skills, Human Resources management, Financial Management, Public Procurement, performance management skills, etc. Overview of Sector Aid (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The Public Administration Sector has 14 programme areas, but as can be seen from the table above, only the Executive Function of the President, Legislation, Public Service Policy and Reform, Promotion of Regional Cooperation, Intergovernmental Policy Coordination & Monitoring and Presidential Operations have allocations over the medium term. These operations were necessary for the peaceful conclusion of the history referendum that led to the independence of South Sudan. However, the table also demonstrates the insufficient support to the other programme areas and insufficient reporting by development partners of their support to the various institutions in the Public Administration Sector. The total allocation for the 2012/13 is USD 69.4m, a slight increase from 2011, of which 89% is for supporting Public Service Policy/ Reform. The projected amount for 2013/14 FY is USD 39m which entirely allocated to support Public Service Policy/ Reform. No projected allocation is provided by Development Partners the 2014/15 FY. Table 20. Benchmark Indicators 14 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 95.8 Yes 0 No /13 unless otherwise stated. 15 Efforts are being made to increase the activity of this SWG but it is still in its infancy. Page 45

46 Aid to this sector appears to be closely aligned to SSDP priorities; however this indicator is skewed by the fact that Public service Policy and Reform is one of the sector s priorities, and accounts for nearly 90% of 2011 commitments. The indicator does not reveal priorities which are underserved. Donors in this sector could do more to improve the predictability of their financing, with only 54% of allocated funds reported as spent, and similarly should endeavour to provide three year indicative commitments. There is also room to improve fragmentation, as in 2012/13 only 7.7% of funds were channelled through pooled funds. Some of the smaller donors should consider contributing through the Capacity Building Trust Fund, which has performed well in the sector. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans In order to strengthen the ownership of development assistance it is important that aid is aligned to government policies and plans. In the development of the SSDP, the government has established a clear set of policy priorities for the medium term. For the governance pillar, these are support to capacity building and support to Core Governance Function. Development partners in the sector will ensure the alignment of aid with overall RSS and sector polices and plans though monthly and quarterly SWG meetings, reporting of aid data against programme areas and reviewing this information, etc. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems Central to the achievement of this benchmark is public administration reform and increased capacity of government to effectively manage its resources. Therefore the work of this sector will support the achievement of this benchmark in all sectors. To date the majority of this work has taken place at the central level where increased government capacity can be seen in such areas as the introduction of a Financial Management Information System. Less work has taken place at the sub national level, with the notable exceptions of the Electronic Payroll System, FMIS at state level, and UNV advisors at the state level. MoFEP has identified the Local Services Support Aid Instrument (LSSAI) to channel funding through the Government s state transfer system for local level service delivery. Before donor funding can be channelled through the LSSAI, a series of benchmarks must be identified and met at central state, and county levels. Projects in the public administration sector will be vital in ensuring these benchmarks are met, in particular, support to the payroll system and FMIS. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems Various programmes in this sector support institutional capacity and systems. The Government of Norway (through UNDP) supports the IGAD Initiative. The IGAD Initiative, so far, placed 164 Civil Service Support Officers from Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda in national land state level Government institutions. Currently, the officers are fully engaged in skills transfer for the South Sudan Civil Servant twins selected for this purpose. Page 46

47 The CIDA/UNDP Rapid Capacity Placement Initiative follows a rapid capacity surge approach and focuses on filling immediate implementation gaps in key public sector institutions, with particular focus on rapid capacity placement at the state government level. RCPI Specialists are generally deployed for 1-2 years to provide instant hands-on delivery of core governance functions to ensure the viability of the new State and its constitutionally stipulated decentralized structure. The LSSAI will build capacity by channelling funds through Government systems, thereby strengthening those systems. For the LSSAI to be functional, a comprehensive county-level PFM development programme will be required which puts in place basic systems for budgeting, financial management, procurement, and accounting. This is currently in the design stages, with support from CBTF. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Development Partners through Public Administration SWG shall progressively explore mechanisms to periodically assess the Government arrangements and procedures for public financial management including criteria for sector allocations, accounting, auditing and procurement. The SWG will development a framework for assessing progress towards ensuring that the PFM systems are reliable, transparent and accountable and ultimately upon satisfactory performance, explore ways of channelling aid through the government PFM system. As mentioned previously, the development of the LSSAI will also further progress towards this benchmark. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes The Public Administration SWG will also explore development of a common monitoring and evaluation framework that tracks expenditures against the outputs and outcomes attained. This would then be used to inform subsequent aid allocations to and within the sector. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided To reduce aid fragmentation in the Public Administration sector, donors and partners will take into account other aid operations and government-funded activities in a sector and ensure that there is not a plethora of small projects across sectors. In order to reduce fragmentation, the donors will specialise in a moderate number of sectors, and provide support at scale. Page 47

48 4.8. Rule of Law Chair: Justice Co. Chair: UNDP Chart 11. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 21. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programmeover the Medium Term (USD) Page 48

49 Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) As noted in the South Sudan Development Plan, the priorities for the Rule of Law sector include: Legal Framework - Development of appropriate legal and policy frameworks Community Security - Implementation of comprehensive training programmes for justice and security sector personnel. Criminal Justice System - Construction and rehabilitation of necessary infrastructure - Support the reconfiguration of the Interior - Development of comprehensive strategies for rightsizing and restructuring forces In line with these priorities, development partners will seek to support improved access to justice, promotion of the rule of law and strengthen adherence to human rights standards through support to the development and promulgation of an essential legal framework including relevant national legislation. This will be complemented by support to improved administration of the criminal justice system and its adherence to human rights standards. Specifically, development partners will support the deployment of a fully functional professional police service, based on modern concepts of international policing, responsive to community needs and sensitive to human rights and the special protection needs of women and children. Partners will also support the creation of functional and secure prisons at national, state and county levels and will help promote the rights of prisoners, including women and juvenile detainees. There will also be effort to efforts to expand the availability of legal aid, information and mediation services at the state and county levels to increase community security. In addition, harmonization of the statutory and traditional justice systems through structural reform and targeted trainings, dialogue and sensitization initiatives, including through gender and human rights training at the county level will be supported. Overview of Sector Aid (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The available figures for the Rule of Law sector show that the overall planned funding levels for the Rule of Law sector are likely to decrease slightly between 2011 and 2012/13, with a planned reduction of 16% percent in the total aid volume. In 2011, IA HQ and Community Security and Police were the programme area with the highest level of planned aid financing, while Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development and Human Rights Commission received the least. There are some pronounced trends in the data for the division of aid of within the different programme areas: Programme areas such as Institutional Building of JSS (167% increase), Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development (56.9% increase) have significantly higher expected planned aid commitments for , while others such as the Human Rights Commission (74.9% decrease), Police (19.9% decrease), Prisons (48.4% decrease) and Internal Affairs HQ and Community Security (95.6% decrease) show a sharp decline in aid allocations for the same period. The extent of reduction in levels of funding in the table for Police, Prisons and IA HQ& Community Security programme areas may partially reflective of the current inability to comprehensively map Page 49

50 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding aid operations in the rule of law sector and internal reorganization by development partners. For example, UNDP s CSAC project which had previously reported to the Rule of Law sector is now reporting its support in the Security sector due to internal reorganization under the new Country Programme Action Plan. The current aid commitments for the Rule of Law sector for 2013/2014 stand at roughly two thirds of those reported for 2012/13. There are no commitments currently planned for the rule of law sector in This trend may not be indicative of lack of medium-term donor support and commitment of the Rule of Law sector but rather of both external and internal constraints faced by donors and development partners in the form of annual or two-year programming cycles. Table 22. Benchmark Indicators 16 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 Yes 0 No Aid expenditure in the rule of law sector is found to be very closely aligned with priorities outlines in the SSDP. However there is potential for improving performance against benchmark 5 aid is orientated towards outcomes as less than two thirds of annual aid allocations are reported as spent, with projects deviating in expenditure from plan by just under 50%. Furthermore, the provision of more comprehensive multi-year commitments (albeit indicative), would improve the predictability of aid and support medium-term planning. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans Outside of UN Country Team programming, which adheres to the IMAC appraisal system, alignment of aid to RSS priorities within the Rule of Law sector currently takes place on an ad-hoc bilateral basis with development partners taking their direction from government documents such as the SSDP and institution-specific strategies including those prepared for the MOJ and JOSS. It is expected that the alignment process will become more systematized as governmental and donor coordination mechanisms are strengthened and begin to operate on a regular basis. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 50

51 Currently the vast majority of aid is managed by donors directly, or transferred to international or local NGOs and UN agencies, which manage that funding and deliver services. A core objective of the SSDP is to build stronger government institutions and service delivery systems to facilitate the progressive management of aid by Government institutions and use government s chosen systems for deliver the SSDP priorities. Before Government systems can be used to deliver aid, they must be strengthened. USAID, UNDP and other development partners are engaged with the Finance, at the national state and lower levels of government to strengthen Public Financial Management systems. The timelines for adoption of these systems for aid delivery in the rule of law sector is ultimately contingent on progress made in strengthening delivery, accountability and oversight of government processes to manage and deliver aid flows and programmes in a transparent and accountable manner. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems Aid has an important role in strengthening institutional capacity and systems through supporting activities such as training, conducting studies and the provision of technical assistance. The Rule of Law sector development partners aim to support capacity development through institutional capacity assessments, and specifically support the establishment review for the police and prisons services. In addition, resources will be provided for the Justice and Judiciary for the strengthening of service delivery capacity both in terms of administrative and technical capacities to manage cases, legislative drafting and to address pre-trial detention challenges. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems It is important that aid funding is increasingly incorporated into the stages of the budget cycle, from planning and budgeting through to budget execution, accounting and audit processes. While government does not expect aid operations to use government systems in full from the outset, it is noted that there are simple steps development partners can make to use government systems without any additional risk to their funding. As such, the rule of law sector development partners will endeavour to provide up to date information through the AIMS tool, to ensure consideration in the overall planning and execution process. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes Rule of Law Sector commit to report regularly on the planned and actual activities and outcomes of aid operations, in addition to funding allocations and expenditures to a government established coordination mechanism for the sector. Furthermore, funding to the sector shall become increasingly predictable as there is increased clarity in institution and sector level strategic plans. Adjustments to agree upon programming by development partners will be done in consultation with the sector coordination mechanism as well as to any programme specific oversight bodies. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided Aid fragmentation in the Rule of Law Sector has increased as a result of various external and internal framework changes brought upon by the establishment of South Sudan as an independent State in July With the expiration of such multi-donor agreements as the Strategic Partnership, donors and developing partners have introduced and/or expanded bilateral programmes in the rule of law. Similarly many development actors and international NGOs have also entered or stepped up Page 51

52 operations in the rule of law sector post-independence. This increased level of aid fragmentation should become more consolidated as governmental and donor coordination mechanisms are strengthened and begin to operate on a regular basis. Page 52

53 4.9. Security Chair: Defence Co. Chair: US Government Chart 12. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 23. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) The international community provides a wide range of support to the SSDP, but they do it in terms of program assistance, not in the form of money or grants. These programmes are developed on consultation with the RSS and with the other donors in order to insure that the programs both meet the needs of the RSS and are not duplicative. Page 53

54 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding Overview of Sector Aid The majority of aid financing sector to the sector is focused on three programme areas, Operation of the SPLA;Transformation, Training and Orientation of the SPLA; and DDR, together accounting for 91% of 2012/13 commitments. These are well noted Government priorities, and essential for providing the stability necessary for investment and development. Mine Action, Administration of the SPLA, and Logistical Arrangements of the SPLA are not considered priorities for donor funding. Rather, these are financed predominantly through the Government. Overall, the level of funding to the sector is predicted to decrease only minimally, with a 16% fall in commitments between 2011 and 2012/13. However, if the expenditure performance of the sector s donors improve, expenditure could rise compared to This is in part dependant on the security situation, and how it unfolds over the course of 2012/13 will impact donor spending in the sector. Table 24. Benchmark Indicators 17 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 78.2 No 0 No Fragmentation in the sector could be improved, with eight partners engaged below the USD 20m threshold. Without any pooled funds particularly active in this sector, the most promising measure to do this would probably be through engaging in silent partnerships with other larger donors. More comprehensive multi-year commitments would facilitate medium-term planning and improve the predictability of aid to the sector (currently only 22% of partners are provided these). Donors could improve coordination of their support in the sector by increasing engagement in the sector working group, and aiming to provide a more comprehensive Sector Aid Financing Plan in 2013/14 which includes a report on activities and more detailed plans on how they will meet the Aid Strategy Benchmarks. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans Donors work closely with the RSS and only provide assistance in areas the RSS has agreed are needed /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 54

55 Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems The aid is offered in the form of instruction, training, advisors and equipment. No funds or grants are provided to the RSS. The RSS decides what programs it needs in consultation with the donors. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems The donor community believes that the assistance provided does support institutional capacity and systems. Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Aid money is not channelled through Government systems directly. The donor governments directly fund the programs offered, but the programs are coordinated through the RSS. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes The donor community has specific goals in mind with regard to enhancing and promoting the security sector. These goals are coordinated with the RSS, and any that do not meet the objectives of the RSS are not implemented. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided The donors coordinate their assistance both with the RSS and with each other through regular meetings. Page 55

56 4.10. Social and Humanitarian Affairs Chair: Gender Co. Chair: Norway Chart 13. Summary of Projected Aid Allocations to Programmes in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 25. Summary of Sector Aid Allocations by Programme over the Medium Term (USD) Page 56

57 Sector Priorities for Aid Funding (as noted in the Sector Aid Financing Plan) Since becoming a nation state in its own right, the Government of South Sudan and the donors have striven to shift their engagement from short-term humanitarian aid to longer-term development programming. However, for the foreseeable future, humanitarian aid will continue to be an important resource flow. Inadequate levels of national food production, and large numbers of internally displaced people and refugees returning to South Sudan, mean that the humanitarian crisis thresholds are still frequently exceeded. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that for years to come, the young state will remain be a huge recipient of international humanitarian aid, for which the Government of USA will continue to be the largest donor, shouldering about half the humanitarian budget in South Sudan through a wide range of implementers, the World Food Program being the most prominent. Donors have in various ways and over various span of time engaged in the Social and Humanitarian Sector, which is part of the social and human development pillar in the SSDP. The SSDP states that the objective of the pillar is to promote the well-being and dignity of all the people of South Sudan by progressively accelerating universal access to basic social services. Reducing risk, vulnerability, poverty and economic and social exclusion is imperative to the South Sudanese Government, and the donors have aligned themselves to this goal by engaging in projects like Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Development in all ten states. Gender Equality is a cross cutting priority well described in the SSDP. This is duly reflected in the many projects supported by donors, who have supported several hundred community-based organizations to this end. These projects more often than not are focused on concrete activities, like micro financing, education, resource mapping, political participation, local regulations and others. Amongst the top implementation priorities of the SSDP is improving and expanding social services alongside peace building and actions that enhance security and rural development. Social Protection is one of the five top priorities under the Social and Human Development Pillar of the SSDP. Larger, multilateral organizations as UNDP and UNICEF s Child Protection Programme will contribute to Programme Area 3 and 4, which are Providing family and community based essential services and livelihood opportunities and Providing Social Welfare Services. UNICEF s Child Protection Programme also contributes to humanitarian response in terms of protection of children during emergencies. Overview of Sector Aid The table indicates that the majority of aid funding in 2012/13 will go towards three programme areas: humanitarian and disaster management, promoting gender equality and empowering vulnerable groups. This is clearly aligned with the SSDP goal of reducing risk, vulnerability, poverty and economic and social exclusion. However this funding tapers of significantly for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which is probably indicative of a combination of short time horizons in donor planning, and incomplete medium term donor reporting. Humanitarian and disaster management accounts for a large proportion of future allocations 25% of 2012/13 commitments and 80% of 2013/14 commitments (compared to 45% in 2011). Less funding is identified as supporting Peace Building & Conflict Resolution and Youth, Sport and Recreation, the former of which is a clearly stated SSDP priority. This may be indicative of a funding Page 57

58 % of aid provided through pooled funds or budget support No of donors engaged below the 20m threshold in the sector. % of programmes disbursing more than $20m per annum Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent in the AIMS (2011) % major projects reporting on planned and actual activities & outputs in the SAFPs Average of year 2 and 3 projections as a share of Year 1 commitments % of donors providing MT projections to a sector Sector has an active SWG meeting throughout the year % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support sector aid financing strategy prepared by SWG % aid provided to SSDP priority programmes from total aid funding gap, however it is also possible that funding to this programme area has been aligned to the security or rule of law sectors, demonstrating the fluid boundaries between the RSS sectors. Table 26. Benchmark Indicators 18 Benchmark Indicator 1: Alignment with Priorities 2. Managed by Govt& use Govt Systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 87.7 Yes 0 No There is a lot of room to reduce fragmentation in this sector, with a large number of donors providing bilateral assistance below USD 20m mark, and less than two percent of funds delivered through pooled funding mechanism, despite the existence of the Common Humanitarian Fund. In addition, there is room to improve the predictability of aid financing to the sector, with only 27.3 percent of funds expended in However this is probably in part due to the ad hoc nature of humanitarian support, where expenditure is largely driven by the event of often unforeseen crises. Sector Plans to Achieve Benchmarks in Aid Delivery (as noted in Sector Aid Financing Plan) Benchmark 1: Aid is aligned with overall RSS and sector policies and plans All donors surveyed have aligned their programmes to the Governments Development plan. The donor programmes of cooperation will significantly contribute to the relevant South Sudan Development Plan pillar of Social and Human Development. The various aid programmes strive to accompany the new nation in its stabilization, transition and State-building efforts by striking the right balance between humanitarian and development assistance. The development partners recognise the continuing fragility in the country and the transitional needs between emergency, recovery and development, and will build in the flexibility necessary for programmes to remain relevant. Benchmark 2: Aid is managed by Government institutions and uses Government systems Minimal aid is managed by government institutions, and in almost all cases, such aid passes through an intermediary organization such as UNDP. The aid programmes are coordinated jointly by the Finance and Economic Planning and donors, with implementation actors at both national and state levels including the Ministries covered within this sector. Much of the multilateral funding /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 58

59 is channelled through UN agencies. Implementation is also undertaken by members of the civil society including NGOs, community-based organizations and faith-based organizations. Benchmark 3: Aid supports institutional capacity and systems Aid supports institutional capacity at either National, State or County levels. Coordination of aid offered at different levels needs improvement. In line with the SSDP / Medium-term Capacity Development Strategy, there are 3 main areas for capacity development, legal and policy frameworks (formulation and approval of policies, strategies and legal frameworks related to social and humanitarian sector); institutional structures and systems (including planning, monitoring, logistics and procurement capabilities, as well as infrastructure and equipment needed to enable delivery of functions, particularly at the local level); and human resource development (critical human capacities for delivery of essential services and empowering rights-holders). Benchmark 4: Aid is aligned with the RSS budget cycle and is channelled through Government PFM systems Aid is still not aligned to either the budget cycle or channelled through government systems. Going forward, funding will be reflected in the budgets and sector aid strategies and will be input to AIMS. The programmes will support the strengthening of Government PFM systems, particularly in the sectors of collaboration, and disburse to the state and decentralized level, in line with agreements at the National level. Benchmark 5: Aid is oriented to the achievement of outcomes Aid provided is made largely on a project basis, with perhaps excessive focus on Outputs rather than Outcomes. Increased government coordination is key to rectify this in the coming years. Benchmark 6: Aid is provided coherently and fragmentation is avoided The donor programmes will continue to be strongly engaged in the overall South Sudan Development plan and its processes. The sector based development and humanitarian coordination mechanisms including Nutrition, Health, Education, Child Protection, Gender Based Violence, will be key forums in which participation will enhance coherence and reduce the risk of fragmentation. Page 59

60 5. Donor Analysis Table 22 below provides an overview of the aid strategy benchmark indicators at the donor level. The Aid strategy states that the Government does not expect the benchmarks to be achieved overnight. However, development partners are expected to work with the Government to make significant moves towards achieving these benchmarks over the lifetime of the Strategy. Therefore 2012/13 performance is intended to provide a baseline upon which progress in 2013/14 and beyond can be measured. On the whole, development partners are performing well against benchmark 1: aid is aligned with national priorities. Almost all of the 22 major donors reported 70% or more of aid to be aligned to SSDP priorities. Although we are not yet measuring the distribution of resources - it is possible that donors are overfunding some areas and underfunding others. Alignment could be further strengthened through better compliance with the requirements of the Inter-Ministerial Appraisal Committee, the Government body responsible for appraising donor programmes. As of November, only 6 donors had submitted their strategies to IMAC. Performance also needs to be improved against benchmark 3 aid is aligned with the budget cycle & use RSS PFM systems. Of the 22 largest donors, only 13 provided medium term projections and only 10 provided data within the deadline during the budget process. As with the sector-level indicators, the Government does not yet have measured indicators to address all the benchmarks, notably absent being benchmark 4 aid supports institutional capacity and systems. Going forward, new indicators will be measured for this benchmark from data collected through the AIMS (see annex 1). Given that the majority of these benchmarks are determined from data collected in the AIMS, their accuracy is determined by the quality of the data provided by development partners. In the case of a number of indicators, poor quality reporting will result in a poorer performance in the indicator (for example, incomplete expenditure reporting may appear as a low percentage of allocated funds spent indicative of poor aid predictability). In other cases, inaccurate reporting may improve the performance against the indicator (for example a donor not reporting on small projects may have the effect of making their programme appear less fragmented). The Government is committed to working with partners to improve the quality and accuracy of aid data going forward. The rest of this section will review the top-12 donors 19 in turn, as well as key multilaterals, UN agencies and pooled funds As per table Specifically, African Development Bank, EU, World Bank, MDTF, CBTF, CHF, BSF, SSRF, UNDP and UNICEF. Page 60

61 No of sectors engaged in below $20m Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm ) % aid allocated through multilateral/pf (2011) Average % project deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments Provision of medium term projections % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % of Aid budgeted to SSDP Priority Programmes Number of aid programmes Number of sectors engaged in Table 27. Donor-Level Aid Strategy Benchmarks 21 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS pfm systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Indicator African Development Bank % No 0.0% Yes 1.3% No 34.1% 65.9% 21.0% Australia % No 0.0% No 0.0% Yes 100.0% 0.0% 39.7% Basic Services Fund % No 0.0% N/A N/A Yes 124.3% 58.3% N/A Canada % No 0.0% No 0.0% No 83.4% 16.7% 25.4% Capacity Building Trust Fund % No 0.0% Yes 50.7% No 0.0% 100.0% N/A Common Humanitarian Fund % No 0.0% No 0.0% Yes 0.0% 100.0% N/A Denmark % No 0.0% Yes 46.2% No 85.3% 14.7% 17.7% European Union % No 0.0% Yes 12.8% Yes 15.6% 92.9% 37.7% France % No 0.0% Yes 1.1% Yes 27.0% 73.0% 5.7% Germany % No 0.0% No 0.0% No 3.6% 101.9% 17.1% Japan % No 0.0% Yes 22.8% Yes 108.4% 120.0% 43.9% Multi Donor Trust Fund % No 0.0% N/A N/A Yes 104.7% 66.5% N/A Netherlands % No 0.0% Yes 78.7% No 17.7% 106.0% 81.7% Norway % Yes 0.0% Yes 28.6% Yes 98.3% 26.0% 59.8% Sudan Recovery Fund % No 0.0% Yes 0.0% Yes 64.0% 37.9% N/A Sweden % No 0.0% Yes 39.5% No 100.0% 0.0% 78.8% Switzerland % No 0.0% No 0.0% Yes 21.9% 99.5% 37.2% UK % Yes 0.0% Yes 32.6% No 132.1% 194.1% 75.4% UN Development Programme % Yes 0.0% No 0.0% No 88.9% 37.9% N/A UN International Children's Fund % Yes 0.0% No 0.0% No 88.1% 23.3% N/A USA % Yes 0.0% Yes 50.1% No 20.5% 79.5% 6.2% World Bank % Yes 0.0% Yes 38.4% Yes 26.8% 96.3% N/A /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 61

62 5.1. African Development Bank Chart 14. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 28. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 29. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency Plan Outturn UNDP 234, ,638 Total 234, ,638 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 1,115, ,638 Page 62

63 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan(2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 30. Benchmark Indicators 22 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 62.1 No 0% Yes 0.3 No Overview of Donor Funding The African Development Bank s (AFDB) bilateral commitments for 2012/13 remain relatively low at less than USD 10m, with no medium-term allocations beyond 2013/14 reported. There are some circumstantial reasons for this at the time of reporting, RSS had not yet completed its membership of the African Development Bank, and AFDB had yet to finalise their Country Assistance Strategy or recruit a Resident Representative. It is hoped that membership will accelerate the rate of board approval for funding of new multi-year programmes. Membership of the African Development Bank brings with it an opportunity to design a focused, unfragmented programme of support, and the Government hopes AFDB will limit the number of sectors it is active in at less than $20m per annum. Furthermore, as lead donor for the infrastructure sector, AFDB should seek to provide significant financial assistance to the sector over 2012/13 to compliment the technical advice it is currently providing. It is hoped that AFDB will explore options for pooled funding options for this support, with the development of the Rapid Infrastructure Delivery Fund being a priority. Efforts must be made to ensure that the new AFDB programme is aligned with Government s priorities. Alignment is supported through the IMAC process, and so it is vital that AFDB submit their Country Assistance Strategy to the IMAC for appraisal /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 63

64 5.2. Australia Chart 15. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 31. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 32. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan CHF 822,431 UNDP Unicef 1,052,448 4,701, Outturn 822, ,005 4,142,048 Total 6,575,970 5,900,484 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 16,575,970 15,900,484 Page 64

65 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MTyr commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 33. Benchmark Indicators 23 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 No 0% No 0 Yes Overview of Donor Funding There is room for Australia to improve their donor reporting; they have not provided the Government with medium-term allocations beyond 2012/13, and it is probable that at USD 0.5m their 2012/13 allocation is an under-reported. The Government of Australia has made some efforts to minimise the fragmentation of their assistance, being active in only three sectors in bilaterally in 2011 (although below the $20m recommended threshold). Furthermore, 40% of their aid budget was channelled through CHF, UNDP and Unicef. This is in part a consequence of their limited physical presence in South Sudan, with no advisors currently based in-country. Whilst their budget remains relatively small, Australia should continue to channel a significant portion of their support multilaterally, to minimise fragmentation /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 65

66 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of 3 yr commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities 5.3. Basic Services Fund Chart 16. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 34. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 35. Benchmark Indicators 24 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt syste ms 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 98.6 No 0% N/A 25 N/A Yes N/A /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. 25 BSF will end in December Page 66

67 Overview of Donor Funding The Basic Services Fund (BSF) is a pooled funding mechanism which supports a range of services in the primary education, primary health and water and sanitation sectors. Its main contributors include DFID, Netherlands, EU, Norway and Sweden. BSF has brought about improvements in service delivery in some of the most underserved regions of the country, and helped to substantially reduce fragmentation in the sectors in which it operates. The closure of this fund at the end of the year is in part due to the establishment of the Health Pooled Fund (HPF) (in 2012/13 70% of BSF s funding allocation was to the health sector). The Government hopes that the closure of the BSF will not mark a shift to increased bilateralism and fragmentation. To avoid this, development partners must look for alternative harmonised funding arrangements for providing their development assistance, the first being to channelling of aid to the health sector through HPF, as the UK has done. Consideration must also go into alternative arrangements for education and water and sanitation financing as well as small scale infrastructure. Regarding the latter, the Government is currently designing a Local Governance and Service Delivery which will provide donor-financed grants to Counties and Payams, for use on small scale infrastructure projects implemented through a community-driven development approach. Whilst BSF improved fragmentation in the South Sudan aid architecture, it has not performed as consistently against all of the Aid Strategy benchmarks. For example, more progress could have been made on using Government systems and supporting institutional capacity; under BSF services were delivered exclusively through NGOs. The HPF has an opportunity to make headway in this regard; in particular the Government wants to see the HPF employ the LSSAI to channel donor funds through Government systems in support of health worker salaries, once agreed PFM benchmarks are met. Twinned with this, the HPF should make strident efforts to build institutional capacity, both at the central level of government, and in the States and Counties. Page 67

68 5.4. Canada Chart 17. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 36. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 68

69 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 37. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 8,454,716 CBTF UNDP UNICEF WHO WFP FAO 2,083,223 6,811,606 3,978,104 7,754,955 6,931,788 1,018, Outturn 8,855,048 2,083,223 6,057,969 3,505,037 5,238,196 6,931,788 3,204,453 Total 26,495,088 24,937,444 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 104,173,277 91,858,147 Table 38. Benchmark Indicators 26 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 89.3 No 0 No 0 No Overview of Donor Funding Canada has made a significant jump in the table of South Sudan s largest donors, moving from 6 th place to 3 rd between 2010 and 2011 in terms of commitments, and 6 th to 4 th in terms of expenditure. Indeed, CIDA have reported a 55% increase aid allocations, which is likely to be indicative of growth in their aid budget and improvement in the comprehensiveness of their reporting. Despite significant growth, CIDA remains bilaterally engaged in a large number of sectors at a relatively low level. Pooling funding reduces fragmentation, so their planned contribution to Health Pooled Fund is encouraging in this regard. In the interests of predictability, CIDA should endeavor to provide three year indicative commitments. At present, CIDA are only providing 1 year commitments, and given the 22% drop in bilateral allocations between 2011 and 2012/13, these are probably not complete /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 69

70 5.5. Capacity Building Trust Fund Chart 18. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 39. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) outturns are listed as 0 due to the absence of any expenditure reporting for that period. Page 70

71 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of 3 yr commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 40. Benchmark Indicators 28 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 No 0 No 50.7 No NA Overview of Donor Funding The Capacity Building Trust Fund (CBTF) is a demand driven donor fund that responds to Government requests for capacity building and institution strengthening. Accordingly, the fund is performing well against benchmark 1, with 100% of programmes aligned to SSDP priorities, and also intrinsically supports benchmark 4 (aid supports institutional capacity), although indicators for this benchmark have not yet been collected. Looking forward, CBTF will seek to maximise its comparative advantage by focusing on two sectors public administration and accountability. Within these sectors, it is hoped that CBTF will grow in size and expand beyond its current mandate to 2014, attracting more donor financing and reducing fragmentation of aid delivery. In terms of reporting, CBTF is only in a position to provide two years of commitments as development partners have not committed to the fund beyond January Longer-term commitments would improve aid predictability, and allow CBTF to undertake more projects with multi-year funding, which more naturally lends itself to the long-term endeavor of institution building. The lack of expenditure data is problematic, as reflected in the performance against benchmark 5 aid is outcome orientated. The CBTF should endeavor to provide expenditure information on a biannual basis /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. 29 Under the current phase CBTF programmes are designed under a five year horizon but funded for two years. Page 71

72 5.6. Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) Chart 19. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 41. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 72

73 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 42. Benchmark Indicators 30 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt syste ms 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 No 0 No 0 Yes NA Overview of Donor Funding The Common Humanitarian Fund plays a vital role in terms of reducing fragmentation in the delivery of humanitarian aid, which is prone to a proliferation of small, uncoordinated projects. However, when considered within the context of the total humanitarian aid budget in South Sudan which would dwarf the CHF (but for which we do not have a reliable estimate, given that a lot of humanitarian funding in not recorded on AIMS), it is clear that there is still progress to be made. Growth in the proportion of humanitarian funding channelled through CHF, under the guidance of the Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, would reduce fragmentation. In addition, CHF could be strengthened by capitalising on its comparative advantage, through focusing its funding to the sectors which are central to its mandate, namely health, WASH and humanitarian, and reducing the minor sums that are going to secondary sectors. There is room for improvement in expenditure reporting as currently CHF commitments are recorded by UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Juba, whilst expenditure is managed in Khartoum. MOFEP have not yet been able to acquire CHF expenditure data from Khartoum office, which undermines the analysis and impairs CHF s performance against the Aid Strategy Benchmarks /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 73

74 5.7. Denmark Chart 20. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 43. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 44. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 1,137,595 CBTF CHF UNDP UNICEF WFP 2,083, ,431 14,023 1,126,299 19, Outturn 1,191,508 2,083, ,431 12, ,362 19,803 Total 5,203,379 5,121,804 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 29,431,872 25,784,516 Page 74

75 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 45. Benchmark Indicators 31 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 79.9 No 0 Yes 46.2 No Overview of Donor Funding AIMS data reflects a downward trend in the Danish aid budget for South Sudan, as reported allocations fell by 41% between 2010 and 2011, and by 73% between 2011 and 2012/13. However it is hoped that the recent introduction of a permanent representative will provide opportunity for scaled up support. Ensuring this support is consolidated and harmonised to minimise fragmentation will be paramount. In 2011, 17.7% of Denmark s aid was channelled through pooled funds or multilaterals. Denmark s planned engagement in the Local Governance and Service Delivery programme is an encouraging progression in this regard /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 75

76 5.8. EU Chart 21. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 46. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 76

77 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 47. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 8,398,538 BSF UNDP UNICEF WHO WFP FAO 6,754,057 1,714,704 3,046,588 2,676,235 23,211, , Outturn 8.796,568 8,397,926 1,524,989 2,684,295 1,807,702 23,211,127 3,112,681 Total 46,790,711 49,535,287 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 124,077,831 61,587,185 Table 48. Benchmark Indicators 32 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result No 0 Yes 12.8 Yes Overview of Donor Funding By reported allocations, the EU remained the second largest donor to South Sudan in However by expenditure the EU is ranked 4 th, with only 50% of committed funds reported as spent. This is likely to be an indication of two factors at play: firstly there is room for improvement in terms of the predictability of EU aid, and secondly incomplete expenditure reporting. EU is performing well against benchmark 1, with 94% of their funding allocated to SSDP priorities. The EU Single Strategy was a welcome initiative aimed at ensuring that member states activities are not only aligned funding to the Government s priorities, but also to their individual comparative advantage, furthering the division of labour and reducing fragmentation. EU should focus on the natural resources sector, where they have expertise and are the lead donor representative. EU should engage with MOFEP in dialogue on this issue of specialisation, which /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 77

78 should be formalised through appraisal of the EU s Country Assistance Strategy through IMAC, as outlined in the Aid Strategy. Page 78

79 5.9. Germany Chart 22. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 49. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 50. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 1,685,325 UNDP WFP 939,078 1,546, Outturn 1,765, ,179 1,546,606 Total 4,171,010 4,146,982 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 24,362,999 4,876,174 Page 79

80 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of 3 yr commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 51. Benchmark Indicators 33 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 96.4 No 0 No 0 No Overview of Donor Funding The German Government are the 10th largest donor to South Sudan, with allocations for 2011 reaching USD 24,362,999, a 17% increase from Whilst this support is closely aligned to Government s priorities as stated in the SSDP, in 2011 only 3.6% of annual bilateral allocations were reported as spent, indicating incomplete reporting and/or poor predictability of aid financing. There is room for consolidation of Germany s assistance in South Sudan. 2012/3 indications suggest they plan to be active bilaterally in 5 sectors, at an average level of USD 1.79m. Their focus is set to be the Public Administration sector, which could potentially be supported through the Capacity Building Trust Fund /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 80

81 5.10. Japan Chart 23. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 52. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 53. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan UNDP 811,841 UNICEF WFP 13,503,637 7,413, Outturn 722,019 11,897,814 7,413,395 Total 21,728,873 20,033,228 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 49,499,366 50,123,786 Page 81

82 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan(2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of 3 yr commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 54. Benchmark Indicators 34 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 99.2 No 0 Yes 22.8 Yes Overview of Donor Funding AIMS data indicates that JICA is in the process of scaling up its support for South Sudan; expenditure between 2010 and 2011 grew by 62% to USD 50m, and indicative allocations for 2012/13 stand at a substantial USD 128m (which if fully spent could see JICA becoming South Sudan s second largest donor). The Government is grateful for this support, particularly the funding to the infrastructure sector, which is seen to be one of the most critical areas in need of large scale investment and support. JICA should continue to focus on this sector, which it leads in partnership with the African Development Bank. Japan does not deliver any of its assistance through pooled funds, which would provide benefits in terms of lowering transaction costs, improving harmonisation, and reducing fragmentation. In particular, JICA provides small levels of assistance to Accountability, Education, Health, Natural Resources and Public Administration sectors, which could be more effectively be delivered through pooled funds (Health Pooled Fund, and Capacity Building Trust Fund) or through silent partnerships. Furthermore JICA should use its role within the Infrastructure SWG to jointly establishing a Rapid Infrastructure Delivery Fund, an innovative aid instrument being developed by the Finance and Economic Planning that will provide a mechanism for attracting Government and development partner resources into a common framework which will identify, prioritise, finance and implement the Governments key infrastructure investments. It is worth noting that Japan is one of the strongest performing development partners in terms of aid reporting. Reporting accurately and on time directly onto the AIMS, JICA are doing their best to align their aid information with budget processes. The predictability of their aid is strengthened through the provision of medium term indicative commitments, and they have demonstrated a an expenditure record of 108% of aid allocations reported as spent. JICA could endeavour to engage with other aspects of the RSS Aid Strategy as enthusiastically, for example by submitted a Country Assistance Strategy to the Inter-Ministerial Appraisal Committee for consideration /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 82

83 5.11. Multi-Donor Trust Fund for South Sudan (MDTF) Chart 24. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 55. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 83

84 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 56. Benchmark Indicators 35 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 No 0 N/A N/A Yes N/A Overview of Donor Funding As the MDTF draws to a close at the end of this calendar year, the Government and development partners will take stock of the contribution it has made and the lessons to be learnt. MDTF successfully managed to reduce fragmentation and improve harmonisation amongst donors, pooling funds to support key priorities of the Government across a range of RSS Sectors. Whilst its early years were plagued by slow disbursement and overly stringent procurement procedures, the World Bank, as technical secretariat, has made great strides in recent years to improve performance, with 105% of allocations reported as spent in The ending of the MDTF, alongside the closure of the Joint Donor Office which acts as co-chair of the Steering Committee, marks a general trend of bilateralism in the aid architecture in South Sudan. It is important that this does not equate to greater fragmentation in aid delivery, which drives up transaction costs, and leads to pools of overlap and neglect. The hard-won gains of pooled funds such as MDTF should not be forfeited, and the Government will work with development partners to identify alternative harmonised channels going forward /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 84

85 5.12. Netherlands Chart 25. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 57. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 85

86 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid aligned to SSDP Priorities Table 58. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 21,249,145 BSF CBTF CHF UNDP UNICEF 11,095,951 2,083,223 3,700,941 6,928,342 6,543, Outturn 22,256,199 13,796,594 2,083,223 3,700,941 6,161,789 5,765,109 Total 51,600,815 53,763,855 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 63,174,575 55,815,855 Table 59. Benchmark Indicators 36 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 No 0 No 78.7 No Overview of Donor Funding The Government of the Netherlands is a primary proponent of pooled funding mechanism in South Sudan, accounting for 60% of their 2011 allocations. Last year, the channelled over USD 53m of funding through pooled funds and multilateral organisations, dramatically reducing the fragmentation which may have come about had this support be delivered bilaterally. As a number of pooled funds to which Netherlands was a key contributor draw to a close this year (in particular the Multi Donor Trust Fund and the Basic Services Fund), 2013/14 allocations indicate a planned rise in bilateral support from the Dutch Government, focusing primarily in the natural resources sector. The Government hopes that the Netherlands will lead the donor community in the pursuit of new harmonised modalities and programmes. The upcoming Local Governance and Services Delivery programme, which will pool finances from the World Bank IDA credit and other bilateral agencies, is an example of such an initiative /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 86

87 The Netherland s development assistance is closely aligned with Government s priorities, but this strengthened through compliance with IMAC appraisal requirements. Furthermore, there is room for improvement in aid reporting, particularly that of biannual expenditure, (as in 2011 only 17.7% of annual allocations were reported as spent a likely underestimation). Page 87

88 5.13. Norway Chart 26. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 60. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 88

89 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Allocated to SSDP Priorities Table 61. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 12,878,695 SRF BSF CBTF CHF UNDP UNICEF WFP 1,333,598 6,175,138 2,082,223 5,757,020 11,450,783 3,167,728 79, Outturn 13,489, ,019 7,678,104 2,083,223 5,757,020 10,183,867 2,791,029 79,395 Total 42,925,580 42,915,708 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 71,781,080 71,283,208 Table 62. Benchmark Indicators 37 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 83.1 Yes 0 Yes 28.6 Yes Overview of Donor Funding Recorded aid expenditure of the Norwegian Government in South Sudan indicates that levels have stayed at around the same level; USD 73.4 in 2010 and USD 71.3 in This continues to be closely aligned to the Government s priorities as outlined in the SSDP, which is assured through the annual submission of the Norwegian Country Assistance Strategy to the Inter-ministerial Appraisal Committee. Norway was one of only two donors which contributed to all five of South Sudan s pooled funds in 2011, a noteworthy effort to minimise aid fragmentation. As lead donor for Social and Humanitarian Affairs, it is expected that Norway should provide a substantial portion of its financing to the sector, and the table above presents 100% forecasted increase of commitments between 2011 and 2012/13. This may be in part reaction to the oil /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 89

90 shutdown and austerity measures. On this point, the Government has requested development partners avoid redistributing development assistance towards humanitarian aid budgets, which bypasses Government systems and risks undermining the development of institutional capacity. It is therefore encouraging that Norway have pledged that increases in humanitarian assistance over 2012/13 will be additional financing. In % of aid allocations were reported as spent, which points to a high degree of predictability of Norwegian aid. It is hoped that this will continue into 2012/13, and be complimented with the provision of 3 year indicative commitments, which will support medium term planning. Page 90

91 5.14. South Sudan Recovery Fund Chart 27. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 63. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 91

92 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Allocated to SSDP Priorities Table 64. Benchmark Indicators 38 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 97.0 No 0 Yes 0 Yes NA Overview of Donor Funding The South Sudan Recovery Fund was established to support the recovery of South Sudan and bridge the gap between humanitarian aid and longer term development assistance. As it prepares to enter a new phase, this transition is reflected in the growing focus on Infrastructure and Natural Resources sectors, and less on Humanitarian. As the SSRF Secretariat seeks to design the next phase, it should endeavour to maintain the close level of alignment with national priorities. In addition, they should take into account the other concerns and areas of expertise of other active funds, which will include Capacity Building Trust Fund, Common Humanitarian Fund and Health Pooled Fund. In some regards, the closure of the MDTF and BSF will open up the space within which South Sudan Recovery Fund operates, and may pave the way for increasing contributions. However at the same time they will need to contend with growing bilateralism amongst a number of their key donors. With only 64% of allocations reported as spent, there is room for SSRF to improve the predictability of their assistance. Furthermore, the Government calls for multi-year indicative allocations, and so SSRF should where possible push for rolling multiyear commitments from development partners /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 92

93 5.15. Sweden Chart 28. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 65. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 93

94 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Allocated to SSDP Priorities Table 66. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 4,775,089 BSF CBTF CHF UNDP UNICEF WFP 4,824,327 2,083,223 6,990,667 1,297, , , Outturn 5,001,393 5,998,519 2,083,223 6,990,667 1,153, , ,639 Total 20,579,538 21,796,552 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 26,100,813 27,299,827 Table 67. Benchmark Indicators 39 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 100 No 0 Yes 39.5 No Overview of Donor Funding Levels of aid from Sweden have stayed constant at USD 27m between 2010 and % of this is delivered through multilateral or pooled funding channels, which reduces fragmentation and minimises transaction costs. There is room to further reduce fragmentation by seeking alternative harmonized channels for the relatively small sums they are allocating to accountability, economic functions and security in 2012/ % of Sida s 2011 aid allocations were reported as spent, which suggests that the accuracy of SIDA s aid reporting could be improved /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 94

95 5.16. Switzerland Chart 29. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 68. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Table 69. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan UNICEF 487,408 WFP FAO 2,186,059 36, Outturn 429,446 2,186, ,688 Total 2,701,242 2,731,194 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 7,258,557 3,726,022 Page 95

96 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of 3 yr commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Allocated to SSDP Priorities Table 70. Benchmark Indicators 40 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 92.5 No 0 No 0 Yes Overview of Donor Funding Switzerland is one of South Sudan s smaller donors, having spent USD 3.7m in Given the scale of their programme, it is fitting that they seek to minimise the number of sectors they are active in, and so the Government supports the move from 5 to three sectors of engagement in 2012/13. Switzerland has consistently reported allocation and expenditure figures in a timely and accurate manner directly onto the Aid Information Management System. Alignment with the budget cycle in this matter strengthens the national planning process /13 unless otherwise stated. Page 96

97 5.17. United Kingdom Chart 30. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 71. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 97

98 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Allocated to SSDP Priorities Table 72. Summary of Aid Allocations through Multilateral Channels in 2011 (USD) Pooled Fund / Multilateral Agency 2011 Plan MDTF 10,505,195 SRF BSF CBTF CHF UNDP UNICEF 12,497,042 9,648,653 4,639, ,354 8,063,309 5,206, Outturn 11,003,065 8,002,939 11,997,038 4,639,440 19,738,354 7,177,183 4,587,290 Total 70,298,418 67,139,309 Total aid allocation to South Sudan (multilateral + bilateral) 93,205,071 97,405,704 Table 73. Benchmark Indicators 41 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 98.3 Yes 0 Yes 32.6 No Overview of Donor Funding UK aid expenditure as reported on AIMS grew by 24% between 2011 and 2012/13, from USD 81.1m and USD 97.4m, which makes them the second largest donor (when measured by expenditure) last year. Looking forward, education is set to account for a striking proportion of their bilateral budget (an estimated 79.4% in 2012/13), due predominantly to the large Girls Education Programme, as well as their ongoing textbook provision programme. A strong proponent of pooled funding mechanisms, DFID is one of only two donors which supported each of the five pooled funds in 2011, and channelled the highest percentage of its budget to them out of all development partners (76%). They have taken concerted steps to minimise aid fragmentation, and the Government is keen to see this continue next year as they lead the Health Pooled Fund /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 98

99 In both the Health Pooled Fund and the Girls Education Programme, the Government hopes that DFID will clearly set out a strategy towards employing the Local Services Support Aid Instrument, which will channel aid resources through Government systems to the county and payam levels in support of service delivery. This will strengthen UK s performance against benchmark 2 and 3. Page 99

100 5.18. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Chart 31. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 74. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 100

101 No. of sectors engaged in below $20m No. sectors engaged in Average size of Aid Programmes (USDm) No. of Aid Programmes % aid allocated to multilateral/pf (2011) Average % deviation in expenditure from plan (2011) % of annual aid allocations reported as spent (2011) Provision of allocations by deadline in budget process Average of Y2 &Y3 projections as a share of Y1 commitments (%) Provision of MT commitments % aid provided as LSS, RIDF or budget support CAS submitted to IMAC % Aid Allocated to SSDP Priorities Table 75. Benchmark Indicators 42 Benchmark 1: Alignment with Priorities Indicator 2. Use Govt systems 3: Aligned with the Budget Cycle & use RSS PFM systems 5: Outcome Orientated 6. Fragmentation Avoided Result 95.6 Yes 0 No 0 No N/A Overview of Donor Funding The number of resource channelled through UNDP totaled USD 83m in 2011, financed from contributions of 11 bilateral agencies, 4 pooled funds, 3 multilateral organisations, a number of UN agencies and the Government of South Sudan. Indicative commitments for 2012/13 indicate a projected fall in funding of over 50%, a possible reflection of reduced commitments to UNDP from traditional donors and the general trend towards bilateralism. UNDP are also constrained in their ability to provide indicative 3 year commitments by the annual nature of their donor contributions, which is undermining the Government s capacity for medium term planning. Donors and UNDP in turn should provide multiyear commitments even when these are indicative, or not fully financed. UNDP s spending reveals a focus on two sectors in which it demonstrates expertise and access (through the deployment of United Nations Volunteers and other technical assistance in State Governments) namely rule of law, and public administration, sectors in which they operate a leaddonor. Furthermore, their programmes are seen to be closely aligned to the Government s priorities, which are supported by annual submission of Country Programme Action Plan to IMAC /13 bilateral aid unless otherwise stated. Page 101

102 5.19. United Nations Children s Fund (Unicef) Chart 32. Summary of Projected Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector in 2012/13 (USDm) Table 76. Summary of Bilateral Aid Allocations by Sector over the Medium Term (USD) Page 102