5 The role of international donors
59. Total committed Official Development Assistance
(ODA) to South Sudan in 2010 was approximately £735m, including
reported humanitarian funds.[107]
Most assistance is provided by relatively few donors: data published
by the Government of South Sudan (GRSS) suggests that 84% of financial
assistance in 2010 was provided by 12 main donors (Table 5).[108]
DFID was the second largest bilateral donor, spending about £60m
that year.[109] The
USA was the largest donor (£202m) and the EU also spent a
significant amount (£64m).
60. DFID spent about three quarters of its money
in 2010 through pooled funds and multi-donor trust funds. This
includes money spent through multilateral institutions, such as
the United Nations (UN).[110]
The use of pooled funds varies significantly amongst donors: the
USA, for example, provides all assistance bilaterally.
Table 5: Top 12 donors to South Sudan in 2010
| Donor country
| Total 2010 expenditure (£)
| % Funding to Pooled Funds
|
1 | USA[111]
| 202m | 0%
|
2 | European Union[112]
| 64m | 19%
|
3 | UK[113]
| 60m | 80%
|
4 | Norway
| 46m | 45%
|
5 | Netherlands
| 42m | 68%
|
6 | Canada
| 25m | 37%
|
7 | Denmark
| 19m | 10%
|
8 | Sweden
| 17m | 60%
|
9 | Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
| 15m | 0%
|
10 | Japan
| 12m | 0%
|
11 | Spain
| 11m | 65%
|
12 | Germany
| 6m | 18%
|
| Other donors
| 96m |
|
Total | 615m
| |
Source: GRSS, South Sudan Donor Book 2011; DFID
(Ev 102)
61. In this Chapter, we explore the performance of
the key multilateral donors in South Sudan to which the UK contributes
moneythe UN, the World Bank and the European Union (EU)and
the extent of leadership and co-ordination between the many bilateral
and multilateral donors.
Key multilateral donors
UNITED NATIONS
62. The UN is by far the most established multilateral
actor in South Sudan. It aims to spend a total of £700m on
development and humanitarian assistance in 2012 and 2013.[114]
DFID currently plans to disburse about £50m through UN development
and humanitarian agencies over those two years (7% of the UN's
desired total). The UN will spend a further £456m on its
peacekeeping force, the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS).[115]
We discuss UNMISS separately in Chapter 6.
63. We heard contrasting evidence about the UN's
development and humanitarian work in South Sudan to date. The
UN Development Programme (UNDP) has achieved some successes, such
as its support to South Sudan's referendum process during 2010
and 2011. DFID disbursed a total of £33m through UNDP in
2011-12.[116] DFID
said that the UNDP has "strong leadership" at the senior
level, but had been "operating under capacity for some time",
risked "overstretch" and had at times "overpromised
and struggled to deliver". [117]
This reinforced some views expressed to us on our visit that the
UNDP wanted to be involved in too many sectors. We were also
told during our visit that the UN had been pressing upon the GRSS
that it should be considered the main donor in South Sudan.
64. The UNDP-administered Common Humanitarian Fund
(CHF)created in 2006 to provide "flexible and predictable"
humanitarian assistancehas been subject to particular criticism.
DFID is the largest donor to the CHF, contributing almost half
(£24 million) of CHF funding allocated to South Sudan in
2011.[118] In evidence,
Dr Sara Pantuliano said that the CHF had posed a "significant
hindrance" to the ability of NGOs to operate effectively,
for instance by disbursing funds to NGOs before the rainy season
when it was extremely difficult to operate.[119]
The NGO Tearfund shared this view, although we note that some
NGOS say that the administration of the CHF has improved of late.
65. In evidence, the Minister acknowledged the UNDP
had a "bit of a plus and minus record" in South Sudan.
But DFID expects to contribute £30 million to the new round
of CHF during 2012 and 2013.[120]
WORLD BANK
66. The World Bank has a small but expanding presence
in South Sudan.[121]
Since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Bank has administered
the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for South Sudan (MDTF), which has funded
20 projects in ten sectors. As of September 2011, $453 million
(£286 million, 84%) was disbursed of the total $541 million
(£340 million) committed to the MDTF. DFID's contribution
was $132m (£83 million).[122]
All MDTF projects will be completed by June 2012.
67. The MDTF has achieved some successes in South
Sudan: it has provided 2.8 million primary school textbooks and
helped to build nearly 1,500kms of road and a water, sanitation
and solid waste system serving 250,000 people in Juba.[123]
However, as documented in previous reviews,[124]
including our February 2011 report on the World Bank,[125]
and reiterated in our evidence,[126]
the MDTF has been over-bureaucratic and slow to disburse funds
to NGOs. A joint NGO report described it as the "slowest
and most bureaucratic" of all funds.[127]
Dr Pantuliano told us that the MDTF's problems stemmed from the
imposition by the World Bank of a "completely inappropriate"
funding model to the South Sudanese context. She explained that
the World Bank usually operated in more stable settings, working
with governments with greater capacity than in South Sudan. We
also heard that the World Bank had experienced difficulties deploying
suitably qualified staff to South Sudan, which had contributed
to delays, although this problem had now been remedied.[128]
68. DFID has had "concerns about the performance
of the [MDTF], particularly in the education sector".[129]
The Minister asserted, however, that he still had confidence in
the World Bankwhich was an "important partner"because
the problems with the MDTF had been "sufficiently well recognised
for the lessons to be learned and applied".[130]
But Dr Pantuliano argued that there was "little indication"
that either the World Bank or UN-administered funds would be "any
better in the new iteration".[131]
We note that DFID has no current plans to channel additional bilateral
funds through the World Bank in South Sudan.[132]
EUROPEAN UNION
69. The EU established a development presence in
Sudan in 2005, following a 15-year suspension from the country.
Since then the EU has spent about 300m (£250m) on development
assistance to Southern Sudan.[133]
It has also provided a further 87m (£73m) since 2010
to assist Southern Sudanese people affected by conflict. We visited
a 1.7m (£1.4m) EU livelihoods project in Eastern Equatoria,
which trained local people in carpentry, tailoring and other skills,
and provided support to farmers, including cassava cultivation.
70. The EU has recently opened a full delegation
in Juba and is likely to play an increasingly important role in
South Sudan. It will spend 200m (£166m) on the development
of the country from 2011 to 2013, focussing on the rural development,
health, education, and security and rule of law sectors.[134]
South Sudan is one of two pilot countries where "joint programming"
is taking place.[135]
This means that EU funds will be programmed together with additional
financial assistance from EU Member States. The aim is to reduce
the GRSS's transaction costs of engaging with both the EU and
Member States.[136]
We will cover joint programming in our upcoming Report on EU Development
Assistance.
71. The EU has been criticised for delays in scaling
up its delegation in Juba which has made it difficult for it to
disburse funds efficiently. As of March 2012, it had 18 vacancies
in an expected office of 27 people. The office is not expected
to be fully staffed until summer 2012.[137]
In evidence, Mr Stephen O'Brien MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State, said it was "very important" that the UK used
its position as a Member State to ensure the EU is "getting
its act together by matching resources with staff on the ground".
The UK, he said, had "repeatedly asked" the EU Development
Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, to ensure the EU delegation was
"fully staffed". During our visit to Brussels in February
2011, a senior official from the European External Action Service
told us that the delays were due to human resource issues and
budgeting constraints.
72. It is hugely disappointing that the effectiveness
of UK taxpayers' money has been diminished through the World Bank's
problems in administering the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) in
Southern Sudan. We recognise, however, that the MDTF has achieved
some positive results. Given DFID's record in Southern Sudan as
an effective donor and as leader of the successful Basic Services
Fund, we have reservations about the extent to which DFID should
continue to channel bilateral aid through the World Bank in South
Sudan. We believe that the Secretary of State for International
Development should ask the UK's Executive Director to press for
the Bank's board to consider the problems experienced by the MDTF
and how to overcome them.
73. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) has a
mixed record in South Sudan. The UNDP's administration of the
Common Humanitarian Fund hindered the work of some NGOs in Southern
Sudan, although the Fund is now operating better. DFID will continue
to channel money through the UNDP on a variety of projects and
it must monitor how effectively this money is spent. We are also
concerned that the UNDP is overstretched and seeking involvement
in too many sectors.
74. We urge the Government to press the EU authorities
to scale up their office in Juba as a matter of priority. We are
concerned that the EU's slow speed in recruiting staff in South
Sudan may delay the delivery of important development projects
on the ground and hinder the combined development and humanitarian
efforts of the international donor community.
Donor co-ordination
75. Donor co-ordination mechanisms in South Sudan
are still at an early stage of their evolution, although there
are some examples of good practice. The Joint Donor Office (including
Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK) was established
in 2006 and has common office in Juba.[138]
The office, which we visited, comprises technical experts whose
role is to provide policy advice, coordination, and liaison with
the GRSS, as well as oversight of pooled funds and other joint
donor activities. The range of pooled funding mechanisms in South
Sudan, such as DFID's Basic Services Fund, were cited by witnesses
as another example of effective co-ordination between donors.
These had helped NGOs and civil society actors "avoid duplication
and manage gaps in service provision".[139]
Importantly, the GRSS is also increasingly proactive in attempting
to co-ordinate the large amount of overseas assistance that South
Sudan receives from donors. For instance, the Ministry of Finance
and Economic Planning has recently published an aid strategy and
a donor book.
76. DFID told us that the UK "works closely"
with other bilateral donors. It had signed a bilateral development
agreement with USAID (the US development agency) and was looking
to engage to a greater extent with important non-traditional donors
such as China. The Department accepted, however, that donor support
in South Sudan was "relatively fragmented", [140]
a view shared by some other witnesses. Save the Children believed
that the challenges of delivering basic services in South Sudan
had been compounded by "poor co-ordination, irregular and
unpredictable funding, and the lack of a clear joined-up strategy
for delivery of services jointly agreed between the government,
donors and service delivery providers".[141]
A joint NGO report published in September 2011 recommended "substantially
improved" donor coordination, including between donors operating
in different sectors and between humanitarian relief and development
donors.[142]
77. It is vital that DFID, and other international
donors, effectively co-ordinate their work in South Sudan, not
least because of the limited capacity of the state, the scale
of development needs, and the huge sums of money involved. Some
mechanisms are in placesuch as the Joint Donor Office and
the various pooled donor fundsto facilitate co-ordination,
and these are working in practice to some extent. We are pleased
that DFID is co-operating with other key bilateral and multilateral
donors, to ensure its programme complements, rather than duplicates,
those of others. We urge the Department to continue this approach.
78. The Department, alongside other donors, should
also provide the GRSS with the necessary technical support and
advice to ensure that the Government can take a lead strategic
role in co-ordinating the plans of donors.
107 Ev 75 [DFID]. This equates to $1.15bn. Back
108
There are no official OECD DAC figures for donor spend in Southern
Sudan in 2010. Back
109
Ev 102 Back
110
Ev 102 Back
111
Including Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance Back
112
Including European Community Humanitarian Office Back
113
Unlike the others in this table, the UK figure is a DFID internal
estimate and relates to the 2010-11 financial year. The GRSS figure
for the UK expenditure was slightly lower, at about £51m
($81m) for 2010. GRSS also estimated that the UK spent 75% of
its expenditure via pooled funds, rather than the 80% estimated
by DFID. Ev 102. Back
114
$1.1bn. Back
115
UNMISS website, Facts and Figures, www.un.org/en/peacekeeping. Back
116
Through the South Sudan Recovery Fund, Community Security and
Small Arms Control, the UNDP-Strategic Partnership and Common
Humanitarian Fund. Ev 103. Back
117
Ev 75 Back
118
DFID visit briefing for Committee visit. Back
119
Q 47 Back
120
This will be implemented by 35 NGOs and UN agencies. Q 126, Ev
92. Back
121
We published a report on the World Bank earlier in the Session
(Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 606). Back
122
Q 126 Back
123
Q 126 [DFID] Back
124
The OECD found the MDTF to be "static and inflexible"
and the House of Lords European Union Committee was similarly
critical. See also Stephen Commins, "Non-state providers,
the state, and health in post-conflict fragile states", Development
in Practice, vol 20 (2010), pp 594-602. Back
125
International Development Committee, Fourth Report of Session
2010-12, The World Bank, HC 606, pp 18-19 Back
126
For example, Tearfund told us that NGOs and civil society had
"not been sufficiently involved in the design, implementation
and monitoring of MDTF programmes". Ev 58 Back
127
NGO Joint Briefing paper, Getting it Right from the Start,
September 2011 Back
128
Qq 47, 52 Back
129
Q 86 Back
130
Q 126 Back
131
Q 47 Back
132
Q 126 Back
133
Europa press release Back
134
Evw10 Back
135
The other is Somalia. Back
136
South Sudan Joint EU/MS Programming Document, 2011-13 Back
137
Q 126 Back
138
DFID will provide £1 million to support the Joint Donor Office
between 2010 and 2012. Back
139
Ev 45 Back
140
Ev 77 Back
141
Ev 36 Back
142
NGO Joint Briefing paper, Getting it Right from the Start,
September 2011, p 33 Back
|