Annual Consolidated Narrative Progress Report

Transcription

1 Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan 2009 Annual Consolidated Narrative Progress Report Technical Secretariat of the Steering Committee 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009

2 Abbreviations and Acronyms AAPAM AMURT BRAC BSWG CBO CEQ CHF CMSI CPA CPRU CSAC DRHC EC EEQ EOI FAO GoNU GoSS HARD ICCO ICSS IMAC INGO IOM IRD JAM JDO LGB LRA LSC M&E MDG MDTF MDTF-SS MoFEP MoLACD MRC MS NBEG NCA NGO OC OXFAM PRSP PUNO RFP RRP SRF-SS African Association for Public Administration and Management Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team Bangladesh Rural Action Committee Budget Sector Working Group Community Based Organisation Central Equatoria Common Humanitarian Fund Church Mission Society Ireland Comprehensive Peace Agreement Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit Community Security and Arms Control Deputy Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator European Commission Eastern Equatoria Expression of Interest Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Government of National Unity Government of Southern Sudan Hope Agency for Relief and Development Inter Church Organisation for Development Co-operation Interim Constitution of South Sudan Inter-Ministerial Appraisal Committee International Non-Governmental Organization International Organisation for Migration International Relief and Development Joint Assessment Mission Joint Donor Office Local Government Board Lord s Resistance Army Local Steering Committee Monitoring and Evaluation Millennium Development Goal Multi-Donor Trust Fund Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Southern Sudan (World Bank) Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development Ministry of Regional Cooperation Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke (Danish Ass. for Int l Cooperation) Northern Bahr el Ghazal Norwegian Church Aid Non-Governmental Organisation Oversight Committee Oxford Committee for Famine Relief Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers Participating United Nations Organization Request for Proposal Rehabilitation and Recovery Programme Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan Page 2 of 53 Pages

3 SC SGP SSC SSRDF SSRRC ToR TS UK UNDG UNDP UNEP UNFPA UNHCR UNICEF UNMIS WBEG WEQ WFP WHO WVI Steering Committee Small Grants Programme State Steering Committee or State Security Committee Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission Terms of Reference Technical Secretariat of Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan United Kingdom United Nations Development Group United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Fund for Population Activities United Nations High Commission for Refugees United Nations Childrens Fund United Nations Mission in Sudan Western Bahr el Ghazal Western Equatoria World Food Programme World Health Organisation World Vision International Page 3 of 53 Pages

4 Contributing Donors Netherlands United Kingdom Page 4 of 53 Pages

5 Participating United Nations Organisations(PUNOs) Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) World Health Organisation (WHO) and Non-UN Participating Organisations International Organisation for Migration (IOM) Page 5 of 53 Pages

6 Table of Contents Executive Summary 7 1. Introduction 9 2. Background to the Sudan Recovery Fund Governance Arrangements Report on Round I Target Sectors and Beneficiaries Organisations involved in Round I Implementation and Achievements Financial Performance Issues and Concerns Report on Round II Organisations involved in Round II Overview and Background Implementation and Achievements Financial Performance Issues and Concerns Report on Round III Monitoring and Evaluation Communication and Outreach Overall Financial Performance The Technical Secretariat Conclusions and Recommendations 50 Annexes Annex I - Financial Report 2008 Annex II - Financial Report 2009 Annex III Map of Southern Sudan and Round I project locations Page 6 of 53 Pages

7 Executive Summary This is the annual consolidated narrative progress report for the year 2009 on the activities of the Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan (SRF-SS). This report meets the reporting requirements contained in the Memorandum of Understanding of 13 November 2008 signed between UNDP and the agencies and organisations participating in the SRF-SS. The report by the Technical Secretariat is however, to a very large extent, a consolidation of the reports received from the Management Agent(s). This report also contains a background section that deals with the formation of the Fund in This background is essential to appreciate the fact that disbursements could commence immediately following the receipts of donor contributions in late As such, the report on Round I highlights critical activities undertaken in 2008, which were prerequisites for disbursements of funds in January of The report also includes two annexes with the financial reports provided by the Administrative Agent (UNDP) that provide authoritative detail on donor contributions and commitments for 2008 and The annexes also show the location of Round I projects. The Government of Southern Sudan, the United Nations and donor countries established the SRF-SS in May 2008 at the Sudan Donor Consortium meeting in Oslo, Norway, to provide recovery assistance to Southern Sudan. The Fund aims to bridge the gap between short-term humanitarian aid and long-term development efforts. Due to significant preparatory activities in 2008, the Fund was able to commence disbursements within one month of receipt of donor contributions in January A broad spectrum of stakeholders is represented on the Steering Committee of the Fund and this report highlights governance and accountability arrangements adopted by the Steering Committee to ensure transparent management of the Fund. A first round of disbursements through International NGOs ensured the implementation of a broad array of livelihoods projects throughout Southern Sudan. On the whole, implementation of these projects has been as planned although some projects need further review to ensure that activities are implemented within the approved timeframe. Reporting by the NGOs and monitoring by the Technical Secretariat has shown that more emphasis is needed on the impact and the results of Round I activities and particularly impact on women and young people. The report also highlights the importance of co-ordination at the level of the States, progressive national ownership of projects, as well as constraints such as security, logistics, and inadequate sub-contracting arrangements. Round II focused on capacity development of the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF) and assistance to indigenous Community Based Organisations. Challenges in this Round included operational delays and the logistical and monitoring constraints faced by the Small Grant Coordinator. However, significant acceleration of disbursements for Round II is foreseen for A Round III commenced in July 2009, focusing on State-led stabilisation efforts, including the extension of State authority throughout two States affected by insecurity. The Steering Committee has approved a stabilisation programme for the State of Jonglei and a programme for the State of Lakes has been formulated. Page 7 of 53 Pages

8 Although the SRF-SS has adopted a comprehensive logical framework to guide monitoring of SRF projects, the pace of monitoring has been constrained by the spread of projects across the ten States of Southern Sudan and a modest contingent of M&E personnel. Regular and results-focused reporting, as well as consistent monitoring and follow-up are essential to ensure that the objective of the Fund, tangible and timely peace dividends for the population, can be verified both quantitatively and qualitatively. Further improvements in this regard remain needed. The Secretariat has also devoted considerable efforts to cementing the coalition of stakeholders by providing adequate information and conducting outreach activities. It produces a regular newsletter and has received noticeable national and international media attention in The total amount of committed donor contributions to the SRF is USD111.8 million. Of this amount, the Fund had received USD74.6 million at the end of 2009 as paid contributions. Approved and planned allocations amount to USD56.8 million, leaving a balance of USD17.8 million in unallocated donor resources at the end of the year. 1 In the opinion of the Technical Secretariat, the SRF-SS achieved early and significant disbursements during 2009, which naturally led to a high level of expectations. Meeting these expectations by maintaining high levels of approved projects and project disbursements, significant strengthening of monitoring and systematic reporting of results remain clear challenges for 2010 and " In the interest of consistency of terminology this report will refer to (donor) commitments as contributions covered by a signed agreement. We use the term allocations for the decisions of the Steering Committee to allocate received contributions to specific programmes or projects# Page 8 of 53 Pages

9 1. Introduction 1.1. We are pleased to present the annual consolidated narrative progress report for the year 2009 on the activities of the Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan (SRF-SS). The report has been prepared by the Technical Secretariat of the Steering Committee of the Fund and has benefitted greatly from the comments and suggestions received on an earlier draft from particularly the Southern Sudan Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, the Joint Donor Office and UNDP In preparing this report, the Technical Secretariat complies with the reporting requirements contained in the Memorandum of Understanding of 13 November 2008 (MoU), signed between UNDP (as Administrative Agent of the Fund) and the agencies and organisations that are participating in the SRF-SS. 2 A similar reporting requirement is contained in the Standard Administrative Agreement (SAA) signed by UNDP and the United Kingdom on 1 December 2008, and the SAA signed by UNDP and the Netherlands on 4 December These reporting requirements also form part of the Terms of Reference for the SRF-SS, of 20 April 2008, which is an Annex to both the MoU and the two SAAs referred to above. These three core documents define background, objectives, and modalities of the SRF-SS. They also describe the functions and responsibilities of the Administrative Agent and Participating UN Organisations The role of the Technical Secretariat is to consolidate the reports it receives from the Management Agent(s) for the various rounds of funding that the Fund has initiated. It is therefore possible that the characteristics of the reports of the Management Agent also affect the consolidated report The SRF-SS did not fund any activities in For this reason, no narrative progress report for 2008 was prepared. A Certified Financial Statement on the Source and Use of Funds for 2008 is available through the SRF-SS website. However, in 2008 much of the planning took place for the activities to be financed in The formal establishment and formative meetings of the Steering Committee, establishing the current structure of the SRF-SS, also took place in Approvals of allocations by the Steering Committee and disbursements by the Round I Management Agent commenced within one month of the signing of the two contribution agreements in late The speed of this implementation could perhaps not be properly understood or appreciated without highlighting the significant preparatory work that the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS), donors participating in the Sudan Consortium, and the United Nations undertook in $ The eight (8) UN Agencies, which have signed the SRF-SS Memorandum of Understanding comprised at the end of 2009: UNDP, UNICEF, FAO, WHO, WFP, UNHCR, UNDO, and UNIFEM. Additionally, IOM signed the MoU as a non-un Participating Organisation. However, when we speak of the Participating UN Organisations or PUNOs in this report, we refer to all the nine (9) agencies and organisations that signed the MoU. % These agreements can be accessed through the website of the UNDP Multi-donor Trust Fund Office at: Page 9 of 53 Pages

10 1.5. For this reason, this report contains a background section that deals with the formation of the SRF-SS in Likewise, the section on the activities financed in 2009 under Round I of the Fund also briefly recalls some of the preparatory activities already undertaken in These preparatory activities enabled the promptness of disbursements to NGOs in January of The reporting requirements of the SRF-SS also provide for an Annual Consolidated Financial Report and a Certified Annual Financial Statement on the Activities of the Administrative Agent, Sources and Use of Funds as defined by UNDG guidelines. These latter two reports have been prepared by UNDP as Administrative Agent of the SRF-SS and contain the authoritative financial information for the SRF-SS and are included as Annexes to this report It should also be appreciated that UNDP performs the roles of Administrative Agent but is also a Participating UN Organisation. It can therefore be a Management Agent (MA) as is currently the case for Round I, for Round II, and for the Jonglei State component of Round III. UNDP, as Administrative Agent, may only transfer resources to Participating UN Organisations (PUNOs) upon the explicit authorisation by Chair of the Steering Committee of the SRF-SS, following an approval of an allocation by the Steering Committee An approved accountability framework is in place to ensure that in all cases where UNDP is both Administrative Agent and Management Agent, a clear delineation is established between its respective functions, including distinct reporting lines. 4 When referring to UNDP in this annual report, we refer to UNDP in its capacity as Management Agent, unless it is specified that the discussion concerns UNDP s role as Administrative Agent The SRF-SS would not be able to commence activities without partners willing to implement projects and programmes with the financial resources made available through the Fund. This applies especially to the International and National NGOs that are implementing projects throughout the vast expanse of Southern Sudan. It should particularly be appreciated that, by and large, the men and women managing these projects operate under demanding circumstances. For this reason, the chapter on Round I provides detailed information on the NGOs that are implementing these projects. This information is also relevant as this report only captures the salient dimensions of the achievements of and challenges to the Fund. For more detailed information on the objectives, activities and difficulties of individual projects, direct contact should be made to the NGOs listed in this report. & Protocol on the Administrative Agent for Multi Donor Trust Funds and Joint Programmes at: There is also a specific directive on this issue within UNDP ( firewalling these respective two functions. The core functions of the Administrative Agent include (1) receiving donor contributions on behalf of the Participating UN Organisations; (2) disbursing funds to Participating UN Organisations as instructed by the SRF-SS Steering Committee; (3) reporting on the sources and uses of donor contributions received; (4) consolidating reports from Participating UN Organisations for submission to donors; and: (5) consolidating key audit recommendations received from the auditors of the Participating UN Organisations as well as the audit of the Administrative Agent. Page 10 of 53 Pages

11 1.10. Similarly, in the Chapter describing Governance Arrangements, we wish to do justice to the diversity and broad composition of the Steering Committee of the Fund by providing information on the mandate and mission of each member, particularly the Steering Committee members that represent the Government of Southern Sudan, such as the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF), the Ministry of Regional Cooperation (MRC), and the Local Government Board (LGB). In addition, both national and international Non- Governmental Organisations are represented on the Steering Committee in the form of the representative of the NGO Secretariat. We therefore also highlight briefly the structure of the association of NGOs, as it exists in Southern Sudan For easy reference, we include here the list of the ten (10) States of Southern Sudan and the three (3) regions. A map of Southern Sudan is also included in the Annexes to this report. Greater Equatoria Region Greater Bahr el Ghazal Region Greater Upper Nile Region 1 Central Equatoria 4 Lakes 8 Jonglei 2 Eastern Equatoria 5 Warrap 9 Upper Nile 3 Western Equatoria 6 Northern Bahr el Ghazal 10 Unity 7 Western Bahr el Ghazal Page 11 of 53 Pages

12 2. Background to the Sudan Recovery Fund 2.1 The Government of Southern Sudan, the United Nations and donor countries agreed in May 2008 at the Sudan Donor Consortium meeting in Oslo, Norway, to establish the Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan (SRF-SS), with the overall aim of expediting delivery of recovery assistance to Southern Sudan. The design of the SRF-SS intends to bridge the gap between short-term humanitarian aid and long-term development efforts. 2.2 The consensus to establish the SRF-SS grew from an assessment of the effectiveness of aid coordination arrangements following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which was signed on 9 January The two parties of the CPA requested the World Bank and the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) to coordinate a Joint Assessment Mission (JAM), which was to produce a recovery and development programme for the interim period of the CPA ( ). 2.3 At the end of the first phase ( ) of this programme, partners in the development of Southern Sudan recognised the need for an arrangement that should specifically accommodate short-term recovery initiatives and that would accelerate the realisation of peace dividends for the population. Or in the words of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Sudan, at the time, Mr. Ashraf Jehangir Qazi: On the recovery and development side, significant gains have been made, particularly with respect to health and primary education. However, much needs to be done in order for Sudan to meet the Millennium Development Goal targets. Three years after the signing of the CPA, it has become an urgent imperative to provide tangible benefits of peace to the people in war-affected areas The Government and its development partners also agreed that such an arrangement focusing on recovery efforts should be complementary to the Multi-donor Trust Fund Southern Sudan (MDTF-SS). The CPA, particularly its Wealth Sharing Protocol, provided for the establishment of Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) for Sudan, one for the North and one for the South, as key instruments to channel international support to the country s socioeconomic development. At the Donor Consortium meeting in Oslo, the partners in Sudan s development agreed that the MDTF for Southern Sudan, managed by the World Bank, 6 should be complemented by a new flexible arrangement that would operate in close cooperation with the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF). Two donors, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom pledged USD93 million to help establish the SRF-SS. ' Address by Mr. Qazi to the third Sudan Consortium meeting, 5-7 May 2008, Oslo, Norway. ( The Sudan Recovery Fund-Southern Sudan (SRF-SS) is one of the Multi-donor Trust Funds administered by the UNDP Multi-Donor Trust Fund Office (MDTF Office). The World Bank, on the other hand, manages a Multi-donor Trust Fund for North Sudan and a similar trust Fund for South Sudan, which we refer to in this report as MDTF-SS. Page 12 of 53 Pages

13 2.5 Concurrent with the preparations for the Oslo meeting, the Government of Southern Sudan in collaboration with the SSRDF, UNDP, and the Joint Donor Office (JDO) agreed on the basic structure and organisation of the SRF-SS, a provisional Steering Committee (SC) and a Technical Secretariat to support the SC. Detailed draft Terms of Reference for the Fund were already available in April of In anticipation of the formalisation of contribution agreements with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and to ensure that a Steering Committee could have well-prepared meetings immediately following the May Oslo 2008 conference, UNDP advanced Funds to enable operations of the Technical Secretariat in Both SSRDF and UNDP agreed to recruit staff for the Secretariat. 2.7 The Steering Committee met twice in July of 2008 to agree on its role, membership, its own terms of reference and procedural matters. A Strategic Framework and an initial Allocations Plan became available during August, and the Steering Committee reviewed these in September The initial Allocations Plan provided for the funding of recovery activities by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in all ten States of Southern Sudan, and by October of 2008 the Secretariat had commenced inviting suitable proposals from interested NGOs. 2.8 As mentioned in the Introduction to this report, the Governments of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom formalised their contribution agreements with UNDP in early December of UNDP recorded the receipt of the Netherlands contribution of 10 million on 16 December 2008 and receipt of the United Kingdom contribution of 10 million on 9 January of With resources of USD29 million then available, the Steering Committee could proceed to approve projects for an initial round of disbursements to recipient organisations starting in January of Within the remarkably short span of seven (7) months, the Government of Southern Sudan and its partners had succeeded in transforming the SRF-SS from a formal multilateral political agreement into an operational reality through the disbursement of funds to twelve (12) NGOs under Round I to implement livelihoods and recovery projects in all ten States of Southern Sudan. The Secretariat is of the view that this success also reflects the strong ownership and leadership role of the Government of Southern Sudan as Chair of the SRF-SS Steering Committee. Page 13 of 53 Pages

14 3. Governance Arrangements 3.1 The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the SRF-SS provides a robust accountability framework to ensure transparency of the governance arrangements in the management of the SRF-SS. The chart below illustrates graphically the basic organisational framework of the SRF-SS. 3.2 The chief decision-making body in the SRF-SS structure is the Steering Committee. Its membership is composed of: Chair: Minister of Finance and Economic Planning; Co-Chair: UN Deputy Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator; Co-Chair: Head, Joint Donor Office; Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund; Ministry of Regional Cooperation; Local Government Board; DFID; World Bank; UN Country Team (FAO and UNICEF represent the UNCT); and: NGO Forum. Page 14 of 53 Pages

15 3.2 Four of the ten voting members of the Steering Committee are entities of the Government of Southern Sudan, emphasising the GoSS leadership. The chairing of the Committee by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning reflects its responsibility for the overall Aid Strategy and for donor coordination. 3.3 The Ministry of Regional Cooperation has the mandate to work with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, to negotiate financing agreements with donor organizations. 7 The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan (ICSS) also grant the GoSS the right to engage in foreign relations separate from those pursued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of National Unity (GoNU). To facilitate this, the Ministry of Regional Cooperation (MRC) has the mandate to pursue issues with other nations such as diplomacy, trade, investment, credit, loans, grants, and technical assistance on behalf of GoSS. 3.4 The ICSS also provided for the creation of a Local Government Board (LGB) to help the GoSS achieve a decentralized system of governance. A major objective of the LGB is to ensure that resources flow from the Central Government to State and County authorities, and to encourage harmonized systems of administration across all States and Counties. A comprehensive Local Government Act was adopted in 2009 that defines the jurisdiction and powers of local authorities in terms of revenue collection and related service delivery. 3.5 As far as the donor representation is concerned, the Steering Committee agreed in July 2008, at one of its formative meetings that the Joint Donor Office (JDO) will be a co-chair on the Steering Committee and that DFID will also be a member of the SC. 8 The Steering Committee also concurred that the adequacy of the representation of donors on the SC should be reviewed by the donor constituency on a regular basis, bearing in mind the number of donors to the Fund. 3.6 The World Bank, as Manager of the MDTF for Southern Sudan (MDTF-SS) is represented on the SRF-SS Steering Committee to ensure consistency with governance arrangements under the respective Funds and to ensure the sharing of best practices. 3.7 The Steering Committee had also previously resolved that the SRF-SS Steering Committee meetings and MDTF-SS Oversight Committee (OC) meetings should be harmonised to make effective use of SC/OC members. This resolution has not been consistently applied and there is scope for the Technical Secretariats of the SRF-SS and MDTF-SS to improve collaboration in this regard. The Technical Secretariat of the SRF-SS is however always invited to participate in the Oversight Committee meetings of the MDTF-SS. ) See also: Government of Southern Sudan, Presidential Decree No. 101/2008 of 28 July * The Joint Donor Office is a partnership, hosted by the Netherlands, which was established after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of Its offices are based in Juba, Southern Sudan. Apart from the Netherlands, the arrangement comprises Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Page 15 of 53 Pages

16 3.8 The Technical Secretariat of the SRF-SS and the Administrative Agent are exofficio members of the Steering Committee. They do not vote in the Steering Committee. 3.9 The inclusion of the NGO Forum Secretariat as a member of the SRF-SS Steering Committee ensures adequate representation of civil society within the SRF-SS governance arrangements. The NGO Forum, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), provides support to over one hundred and fifty (150) national and international NGOs and coordinates with the GoSS and UN Agencies on humanitarian and recovery issues. The Forum also comprises the national NGO Forum, an association of indigenous NGOs At its meeting of 23 July 2008, the Steering Committee confirmed its Terms of Reference. The Steering Committee will exercise programmatic and allocation responsibility for SRF-SS activities. The Steering Committee will, among other responsibilities: Provide strategic guidance for the identification and ranking of current priorities for consideration by those proposing initiatives for funding under the SRF-SS; Set global allocations for sectors within the available quarterly and annual funding envelopes; Decide on the criteria and strategy for allocation of SRF-SS funds among eligible proposals and activities; Maintain close collaboration with national counterparts to ensure flexible adaptation of the SRF-SS activities to changes in programmes and priorities; Review projects endorsed by IMAC and instruct the Administrative Agent for disbursement accordingly, and: Review and approve the consolidated narrative and financial reports of the SRF-SS Technical Secretariat and Administrative Agent The Inter-Ministerial Appraisal Committee (IMAC) of the Government serves as a review body to ensure that SRF-SS projects are fully aligned with the Government s overall Aid Strategy and priorities. IMAC also reviews the implications of SRF-SS Funding for recurring budget expenditure UNDP as the Administrative Agent (AA) for the Fund is responsible for concluding and administering Standard Administrative Arrangements (SAAs) with donors. The AA also administers donor contributions and reports to the SRF-SS Steering Committee chaired by the Government and donors on the sources and uses of the funds. + The national NGO Forum also serves as a member of the Review Committee for the Small Grants Programme under Round II of the SRF. Page 16 of 53 Pages

17 3.13 Under the current governance framework, NGOs and CBOs may also receive SRF-SS funding as project executing agents by signing a project cooperation agreement with a nominated Participating UN Organization (PUNO). This PUNO would then assume an oversight function in accordance with its own regulations, rules, and procedures. It will also report as appropriate to the Administrative Agent on the use of Funds entrusted to it Paragraphs 10.1 through 10.9 later in this report pay attention to the role of the Technical Secretariat, its composition and its budget. Page 17 of 53 Pages

18 4. Report on Round I 4.1 Target Sectors & Beneficiaries: Agriculture, skills training and incomegeneration focusing on vulnerable groups (youth, war veterans, women, orphans, and widows) and historically under-served regions. 4.2 Organisations Involved in Round I A Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Church Mission Society Ireland CMSI Ireland Building Capacity towards Economic Empowerment. To increase employment opportunities through the provision of skill-based and vocational training. USD818,923 Central Equatoria; Juba, Kajokeji, Yei River, Morobo, Lainya January December 2010 (24 months) Name: Mr. David Gough Designation: Mission Partner, North & Central Africa. davidgough@cmsireland.org B Recipient Organisation Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Inter Church Organisation for Development Co-operation ICCO Netherlands Kubri - Bridging the Gap between Relief and Rural Economic Development in Juba County. (Kubri= Juba Arabic for Bridge). To improve livelihoods by strengthening the economy of the rural areas in Juba County. USD1,500,000 Central Equatoria; Juba County January September 2010 (21 months) Name: Mr. Kalisto Inyani Designation: SRF Programme Manager kalisto.work@gmail.com Page 18 of 53 Pages

19 C Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Country Representative or Project Manager: Implementing Agency/ies: Vetwork Services Trust Vetwork Sudan Creating Opportunities through Livestock and Dairy Development Project. To increase the capacity and sustainability of six (6) local cooperatives in Kapoeta County so that they may benefit from livestock and dairy production. USD1,492,589 Eastern Equatoria; Torit, Budi, Kapoeta, Riwoto, Mogos July 2009 December 2010 (18 months) Name: Dr. Thomas Taban Designation: Programme Director Creating Opportunities through Livestock and Dairy Development (COLDD) Project D Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Stromme Foundation Stromme Norway Jonglei Social-Economic Support Project To help alleviate poverty in Jonglei State by providing appropriate and sustainable economic and educational support USD1,486,123 Jonglei; Bor, Boma, Pibor, Ayod, Nyirol, Akobo January 2009 December (36 months) Name: Mr. Moses Remson Designation: Country Coordinator moses.remson@stromme.org Page 19 of 53 Pages

20 E Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: OXFAM Great Britain OXFAM-GB United Kingdom Lakes State Sustainable Livelihoods Recovery Project To improve food security/livelihoods and income generation for vulnerable households. USD1,278,328 Lakes; Rumbek Centre, Yirol East, Yirol West, and Awarial. January 2009 May 2010 (17 months) Name: Mr. Nigel Young Designation: Country Programme Representative F Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team AMURT Austria Enhancing Self-reliance for Communities in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State Through Intervention in the Sectors of Food Security, Income Generation, and Capacity Building. To help communities in Northern Bahr el Ghazal become self-reliant in food production and food security in line with MDG 1. USD974,348 Northern Bahr el Ghazal; Aweil South, Aweil Centre January 2009 December 2010 (24 months) Name: Mr. Benson Ojwang Designation: Programmes Assistant Page 20 of 53 Pages

21 G Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective(s): Budget: Location (State; County/ies): International Relief and Development IRD USA Sustainable Community Food and Livelihood Initiative. (Warrap). Livelihood Recovery, Stabilisation, and Rehabilitation of Community Services. (Upper Nile). To assist community cooperatives in the area of food security in Warrap State. To strengthen service delivery within local government departments in Upper Nile State. USD1,499,023 -Warrap; USD1,476,453 -Upper Nile. Warrap; Gogrial West, Twic West Upper Nile; Maban, Baliet Project Duration: January 2009 June 2010 (18 months) - Warrap January 2009 May 2010 (17 months) - Upper Nile Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Name: Mr. Francois de Laroche Designation: Country Director fdelaroche@ird-dc.org H Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Country Representative or Project Manager: Hope Agency for Relief and Development HARD Sudan Community Livelihood Security Project To strengthen rural livelihoods and improve access to food and income at the household level. USD503,178 Western Bahr el Ghazal; Jur River and Wau January 2009 December 2010 (24 months) Name: Mr. Joseph Garang Designation: Programme Coordinator joseph.garang@yahoo.com Page 21 of 53 Pages

22 I Recipient Organisation Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective(s): Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: World Vision Sudan WVI USA Livelihoods Recovery Programme (Western Equatoria). Livelihoods and Income production Recovery Project (Warrap). Women and Youth in Livelihoods and Protection Initiatives in Ruweng and Mayendit Counties (Unity). To strengthen and diversify livelihoods for vulnerable groups in Western Equatoria State, Warrap State and Unity State. USD1,508,648 (Western Equatoria); USD745,389 (Warrap); USD690,545 (Unity). Western Equatoria: Izo, Nagero, Ezo, Ibba, Mundri, Mvolo Warrap: Kuajok, Gogrial East. Unity: Ruweng, Mayendit January 2009 June 2010 (18 months) Name: Mr. Anton Dharmalingam Designation: Monitoring & Evaluation Manager J Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Norwegian Church Aid NCA Norway Sustainable Livelihood Development in Eastern Equatoria To increase capacity, productivity and income for households USD1,500,000 Eastern Equatoria: Magwe, Lafon, Budi January 2009 December 2010 (24 months) Name: Mr. Tore Torstad Designation: Deputy Country Representative Page 22 of 53 Pages

23 K Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective(s): Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration Website Country Representative or Project Manager: Save the Children Sweden SC-Sweden Sweden Education Protection and Empowerment of Youth and Children Recovering from Conflict To increase access to sustainable services for children, youth and women. USD879,599 (Northern Bahr el Ghazal); USD611,722 (Lakes); USD763,889 (Jonglei) NBEG; Aweil East and North Lakes; Cueibet, Rumbek East and Rumbek Centre Jonglei; Bor South, Twic East, Duk February 2009 August 2010 (18 months) Name: Mr. Abebaw Zeleke Designation: Programme Director L Recipient Organisation: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective(s): Budget: Location (State; County/ies): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: Save the Children UK SC-UK United Kingdom Improving the Lives and Livelihoods of Vulnerable Groups. To reduce livelihoods vulnerability of host communities and individuals and improve protection for the most vulnerable. USD750,000 (Western Bahr el Ghazal); USD995,903 (Unity) Western Bahr el Ghazal; Aweil East, Aweil West, Aweil Centre and Aweil South Unity; Loc, Leer, Rubkona January 2009 June 2010 (18 months) Name: Mr. Abebaw Zeleke Designation: Programme Director Page 23 of 53 Pages

24 4.3 Implementation and Achievements The Technical Secretariat launched an Expression of Interest (EOI) in July 2008 to solicit the interest of qualified and experienced Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) national and international capable of implementing activities under the Round I allocation. The Secretariat eventually received one hundred and twenty (120) proposals from international and national NGOs, in reaction to this EOI. The Secretariat subsequently screened the responses against agreed selection criteria and forwarded initial selections to the Local Steering Committee (LSC) in each of the ten States for further appraisal and selection. The agreed selection criteria, as determined by the SRF-SS Steering Committee, comprised: Projects should be in line with the development priorities of the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) and should focus on the improvement of rural livelihoods. Projects should be consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Sudan Recovery Fund-Southern Sudan, which has identified rural livelihoods and income as important and urgent recovery priorities. Projects should provide direct benefits to underserved communities. Projects should focus on gender, youth, and other vulnerable groups, as GoSS believes these groups receive limited donor support. Projects should show linkages with organisations that are already implementing other projects covered through the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) The State Steering Committees, in turn, are comprised of State Government officials and are usually chaired by the Minister of Finance in the State Government. In some States, the regular Planning and Development Committee also serves as a Steering Committee for the Sudan Recovery Fund- Southern Sudan. Pursuant to the review and recommendations by these State Steering Committees, the Secretariat invited the selected NGOs to develop detailed project proposals. The Secretariat submitted these detailed proposals to the Inter-Ministerial Appraisal Committee (IMAC) in November IMAC then endorsed eighteen (18) projects for the ten (10) States to be implemented by twelve (12) NGOs. The locations of the 18 projects in question are shown in the map in the Annexes to this report Following the IMAC review, the SRF-SS Steering Committee approved on 10 September 2008 the Round I allocation aimed at improving rural livelihoods, including initiatives promoting agriculture and income generating activities. The total budget approved for Round I was USD19.5 million for the 18 selected projects. The Steering Committee also appointed UNDP as the Management Agent for Round I. In January 2009, UNDP and the NGOs entered into Project Cooperation Agreements. Project implementation commenced during the first quarter of Page 24 of 53 Pages

25 4.3.4 To ensure State ownership and accountability and to help increase the capacity of national institutions for oversight, coordination, and monitoring, considerable emphasis has been placed on associating State, County and Payam (District) authorities with Round I projects. State authorities therefore do participate in monitoring visits and high-level State officials are associated with overall coordination through regular meetings with the State Steering Committees (SSCs) and/or State Planning and Development Committees During the reporting period, implementation of the 18 projects has progressed generally well, and significant and substantial achievements have been reported. Specifically, NGOs provided seeds and tools to more than eleven thousand (11,000) farmers. They also trained over eight thousand (8,000) women, youth, and farmers in agricultural production and provided them with marketable skills to improve opportunities for employment. Over one hundred (100) community groups involving approximately one thousand (1,000) people were organised to increase community economic output, and nearly thirty (30) rural facilities such as market stalls, animal health facilities, vocational centres and small business centres were constructed or rehabilitated An indicative listing of activities and results should illustrate the importance of the work of the recipient organisations. NGOs provided significant help to recover and improve agro-pastoral activities. For instance, five (5) implementing partners (ICCO, OXFAM-GB, HARD, Save the Children UK and World Vision) together provided more than seventy-three (73) metric tons of a variety of seeds and seedlings to over eight thousand and two hundred (8,200) vulnerable households in five States (Warrap, Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Central Equatoria, Lakes, and Western Bahr el Ghazal). More than five thousand (5,000) people across nine States received agricultural training to increase their production of crops. This training included the use of line spacing during cultivation whereby seeds are distributed evenly in rows to facilitate weeding and to ensure that seeds are adequately nourished. The practice of line spacing, as opposed to the traditional throwing of seeds over the land, considerably increases yield per acre. Training has also included exposure to the use of ox ploughs to reduce manpower requirements as well as the time required to cultivate a given amount of land. NGOs have also taught farmers how to store seeds properly to ensure integrity and availability of seeds for the next planting season(s). Approximately four thousand and four hundred (4,400) households received agricultural and fishing equipment. Seventy four (74) agricultural extension workers participated in training programmes. A total of eighty (80) community animal health workers took part in refresher courses, and IRD and Vetwork also trained thirty (30) animal health trainers. World Vision, HARD and Save the Children UK distributed more than one thousand and six hundred (1,600) livestock (poultry and goats) to vulnerable families in Central Equatoria, Western Bahr el Ghazal, and Unity. IRD constructed four (4) animal health centres and three (3) slaughterhouses in Warrap and Upper Nile States. Page 25 of 53 Pages

26 4.3.7 Beneficiaries enjoyed increased access to markets and vocational training opportunities. NGOs have provided vocational training courses in carpentry, masonry, hairdressing, welding, mechanics, plumbing, small business, and enterprise development for more than one thousand (1,000) people. NGOs also helped set up vocational training centres in Central Equatoria (ICCO and CMSI), Western Equatoria (World Vision), Lakes (Save the Children-Sweden), Northern Bahr el Ghazal (Save the Children-Sweden), and Jonglei (Save the Children-Sweden). Stromme Foundation established four (4) adult learning centres in Jonglei. Recognising the role vocational training can play in the reconstruction of Southern Sudan, projects sought to improve the employment prospects of young men and women. Some programmes required students from different ethnic groups to interact and/or live together during training, and thereby helped reduce cultural barriers and foster social awareness and cooperation Several NGOs provided financing to small businesses and micro-loans to over one thousand, three hundred (1,300) families. Two organisations, CMSI and AMURT set up voluntary saving and lending groups in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Central Equatoria State. SRF-SS financing also facilitated the construction of eight (8) market stalls in Eastern Equatoria (NCA), Western Equatoria (World Vision) and Warrap States (IRD) to enable small farmers to market their products The projects financed with SRF-SS resources also helped improve health and agriculture and livestock production generally by constructing or rehabilitating water facilities. Across five states, NGOs constructed nineteen (19) boreholes, rehabilitated forty (40) boreholes that had fallen into disrepair, and provided thirty (30) new pumps. These water sources contribute to general personal safety and security by reducing distances women and children must walk in search of clean water. Access to sufficient water points is also critical to reduce the movements of pastoralists. Particularly during the dry season there is a scarcity of water for herds and people, and conflict often arises when different groups compete for access to scarce water sources. Page 26 of 53 Pages

27 4.4 Financial Performance For the year 2009, USD11,280,196 has been available to recipient organisations, assuming the recipient organisations would on average have disbursed Funds equally throughout the project duration. While there would have been project-specific cash-flow patterns, the amount referred to above could have been the expected as disbursement for This amount is 58% of the overall amount of the USD19,474,660 made available for the eighteen (18) projects implemented by twelve (12) recipient organisations, respectively. This percentage also reflects the proportion of the project duration that falls within the year for which the Secretariat is currently reporting The table below reflects the expenditure (delivery) that recipient organisations realised against the resources that were available. The utilisation of these available resources ranged from 43% for Vetwork to 111% for AMURT. For the projects taken together, 75% of available resources were effectively disbursed in While uneven cash flow depends on the specifics of an individual project, there is concern over a number of projects that have shown modest delivery in This is especially true of projects that will be expiring in June Highlighted in the table above are the projects that (a) had modest delivery in 2009 and (b) are also nearing the end of the agreed project duration, which for Page 27 of 53 Pages

28 most projects is June of The Vetwork project ends in December 2010, as this operation only started in July of Given the end date of most projects in 2009 and in light of delivery levels for 2009 (as illustrated above) it is likely that some projects may not meet delivery targets within their approved budgets and timeframes. As the Steering Committee has explicitly stipulated the agreed duration of the projects, significant and immediate adjustments in selected projects need to be identified The Management Agent (UNDP) is consulting with the affected recipient organisations to ensure that alternative implementation arrangements are identified. The Technical Secretariat may then present these arrangements to the Steering Committee during the second quarter of 2010 to ensure optimum utilisation and impact of available resources, in line with the objectives of the Sudan Recovery Fund - Southern Sudan Strictly speaking, the Steering Committee agreed to a specific sum of money for each INGO, to be disbursed during a specific period. This timeframe is formally anchored in the Project Document. Since the Project Document is part of the submission made to the Steering Committee to endorse the transfer of funds to UNDP as Managing Agent, the Technical Secretariat believes that, in principle and as a matter of policy, all requests for project extensions beyond the approved timeframe for Round I must be brought to the attention of the Steering Committee in time to enable meaningful decisions and guidance. Mandates given by the Steering Committee need to have defined validity periods, to be determined by the Steering Committee If Round I NGOs request extensions from the Management Agent, the Technical Secretariat recommends that at least the following issues should be taken into account: Project extensions should be granted only with the prior approval of the Steering Committee on the basis of a submission by the Managing Agent that clearly outlines the reasons why an extension is needed, what impact it will have, and what will be its full financial implications, including opportunity costs, such as the requirements of other projects that may have greater impact. Requests for extensions should contain supporting documentation from State Government and State Steering Committees, confirming the respective State s continued agreement with objectives, results, and modalities of implementation. Page 28 of 53 Pages

29 4.5 Issues and Concerns Apart from the uneven expenditure described above, project implementation and monitoring has revealed several challenges and/or constraints experienced during implementation in 2009 that will require further attention in On the basis of progress and monitoring reports as well as other communication between the Technical Secretariat, the Management Agent, recipient organisations, and State authorities, in 2009 implementation of SRF Projects has faced challenges and constraints as described in the following paragraphs Coordination, Monitoring, and Oversight: In most States, coordination of projects financed by SRF-SS has been enhanced by the establishment of dedicated State Steering Committees (SSCs) or State Planning and Development Committees. These Committees played a role during the design phase, in the selection of implementing partners, in the identification of project activities and in the endorsement of proposals for funding. However, there is considerable variation across the States in the levels of engagement of these committees in actual implementation and systematic monitoring of SRF-SS projects Since these Committees are the first tier for overseeing, coordinating, and monitoring implementation of the SRF-funded projects facing various operational challenges across a wide geographic area, it is important that they operate more consistently across all ten States. The TS will explore with the SSRDF a specific programme to provide needed support to these Committees Through various field trips, the TS has identified the following as reasons that may explain the variation in capacity of these bodies across the States. Delegation of Authority: Membership of SSCs consists of Ministers from relevant institutions (Ministries of Finance and Economic Planning, Agriculture, Gender & Child Welfare, Physical Infrastructure, etc). These Ministers are charged with high-level responsibilities in their State Governments and may not always be available for Committee meetings. To address this issue, some States, Eastern Equatoria for example, Ministers have delegated the responsibility for SRF oversight to Director Generals, and this has been more effective. High Turnover of Government Staff: In Northern Bahr El Ghazal State, for instance, frequent reassignment of staff has been noted as a major impediment to continuity and coordination between the State Government and implementing partners. In addition, such staff movement may not always involve adequate hand-over and briefings. Communication/Reporting: In some States, implementing partners do not share progress reports with their respective SSCs; and many SSCs have expressed their concern about this issue as it poses issues for coordination and accountability. Page 29 of 53 Pages

30 4.5.5 Project Ownership: NGOs have reported differences in the way State Steering Committees perceive their role in project implementation. On the one hand, NGOs would like to steer and maintain ownership over the direction and objective of projects. On the other hand, State authorities are naturally responsible to ensure that projects are in line with overall development plans and community priorities. Continued dialogue on these issues remains essential. It clearly is an important issue, to be addressed during 2010, to ensure that this dialogue does indeed take place. In this respect, the SRF-SS is hampered by the absence of an agreed framework for collaboration between NGOs and Government entities as a draft NGO-Bill has still not been enacted Security Threats: Some projects have suspended activities or have delayed implementation due to insecurity in target areas. Noteworthy among these are projects implemented by World Vision (Western Equatoria), Stromme Foundation (Jonglei), Save the Children-Sweden (Jonglei), ICCO (Central Equatoria), and Oxfam (Lakes). In Western Equatoria, project implementation is particularly hampered by the presence of the Lord s Resistance Army (LRA) Operational Constraints: Within NGOs, clarity about the status of project implementation varies. NGO headquarter staff should consult continuously with their field officers to ensure that initial assessments and project formulation continue to relate to changing realities. For instance, seasonal variations, security challenges, and availability of equipment for rent or charter have an enormous impact on logistics. Similarly, labour mobility may increase as more roads are constructed in Southern Sudan. Given these changing contexts, NGOs must work within valid baseline assessments to ensure accurate evaluation of results, and particularly results that can be attributed to the specific projects. The Management Agent should also monitor this issue Selection of Beneficiaries: NGOs must also systematically monitor beneficiary selection as well as the adequacy and transparency of selection criteria in order to ensure that priority groups (women, youth, returnees, and IDPs) benefit from programmes Inconsistent and Inadequate Results Reporting: NGOs have tended to report on input (quantity of materials distributed and number of people trained, for instance) rather than on impact of their activities. The Technical Secretariat recommends that future project reports describe results in terms of socio-economic impact and effects on people s lives that can be directly attributed to SRF-SS funding. This may include, for instance, reporting about increases in harvest yields, decreases in the dependence on food aid, and increases in household income. The Management Agent should ensure that NGOs make more systematic and rigorous use of indicators, disaggregated where possible by age, gender, and socio-economic strata. The Management Agent is primarily accountable to ensure the availability of good quality reporting, which is only feasible if the reports to the Management Agent by the implementing organisations are likewise prepared in the appropriate formats and with the quality standards that the Management Agent should set. Page 30 of 53 Pages

31 Gender Concerns: Reporting on gender needs far more attention and the Technical Secretariat recommends the introduction and use of gender audits to sharpen the focus on women within SRF-SS funded programmes. There remains a significant need to ensure that all reports by NGOs systematically report on the impact of their activities on women. The Management Agent, UNDP, has a senior gender advisor who can work alongside partners to provide guidance on better integrating gender into results frameworks. Should there be capacity issues, consultations should be intensified to associate senior staff of UN-Women closely with project strategy, design, implementation, and monitoring Sub-Contracting: There should be more robust guidelines on permissible forms of sub-contracting in programmes funded by the SRF-SS. Since most recipient NGOs have made contractual agreements with national NGOs who are in charge of project implementation, a standardised agreement should be used across NGO implementing partners. It should also be noted that though these arrangements may be beneficial in terms of national capacity development, they may also hinder the Management Agent s ability to properly monitor and evaluate the performance of recipient NGOs since sub-contractors have no direct reporting or performance relationship with the Management Agent Micro-Finance Activities: Many of the NGOs have reported involvement in some form of micro-finance. To the extent that these activities involve the repayment of loans into a fund that may eventually no longer be under the control of the NGOs, this is an issue that requires further attention. NGOs should ensure that there remains full accountability for all project funds and project results to their respective State Level Steering Committee as well as to UNDP as Management Agent Training: A final concern relates to training and in particular to the vocational training that six (6) of the 18 projects are involved in. By and large, the communities welcome the training and several graduates have found jobs or have become self-employed. Still, there is a need to approach training through the help of solid market surveys or needs assessments that would clearly reveal what form of training is actually needed and what skills are likely to be readily accepted in the market. Vocational training activities should also expand to include tracer studies to monitor how skills are being applied in the market. Many instructors in the training centres currently come from outside Southern Sudan. There are also no long term plans for training, calling into question the sustainability of vocational training beyond the duration of SRF-SS funding. Furthermore, there is a very low degree of female participation in the vocational training programmes, reinforcing the importance of needs assessments to ensure that training on offer is relevant to young girls and women. Page 31 of 53 Pages

32 5. Report on Round II 5.1 Organisations Involved in Round II A Recipient Institution: Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County): Project Duration: Country Representative or Project Manager: Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund SSRDF Sudan UNDP Support to SSRDF To strengthen the capacity of the SSRDF to help it achieve its mandate of supporting regionally balanced development and improving livelihood opportunities for citizens. USD540,930 Central Equatoria; Juba County October December 2009 (2 months) Name: Honourable Majur Mayor Machar Designation: Chairman (a.i.) mayormachar2002@yahoo.com B Recipient Organisation Acronym: Head Office: Project Title: Objective: Budget: Location (State; County): Project Duration: Website: Country Representative or Project Manager: BRAC Southern Sudan BRAC Sudan SRF Small Grant Programme To help national organisations restore socioeconomic institutions and generate employment opportunities. USD2,675,00 project one-time allocation All States in Southern Sudan October March 2011 (18 months) Name: Mr. Khan Mohammed Ferdous Designation: SRF Programme Manager Ferdous_km@yahoo.com Page 32 of 53 Pages

33 5.2 Overview and Background Under the Round II allocation, the SRF-SS Steering Committee approved funding for (1) capacity development for SSRDF a GoSS commission with the mandate to oversee the reconstruction and development of Southern Sudan, and: (2) A Small Grants Programme (SGP) to enable national NGOs and CBOs to increase their capacity and participation in recovery and development efforts in Southern Sudan The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the 2005 Interim National Constitution (INC) of Southern Sudan provided for the establishment of the SSRDF. The Presidential Decree of June 2006 elevated SSRDF to the status of a Commission. Section of the INC gives the SSRDF the mandate to raise and collect funds from domestic and international donors and disburse such funds for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the infrastructure of Southern Sudan, the resettlement and reintegration of internal and externally displaced persons, and to address any imbalances in regional development and infrastructure Section C, Article 15.5 of the CPA states that the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund should eventually assume responsibility for the management of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund Southern Sudan (MDTF-SS). In recognition of this progressive responsibility for reconstruction and development issues, the Terms of Reference for the SRF-SS also stipulate that the Secretariat will operate in close cooperation with the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF), which has a mandate to oversee the rebuilding and development of Southern Sudan. The SSRDF will be a core partner to the SRF-SS and will [therefore] participate as a member in the oversight and technical bodies established for the SRF-SS. Furthermore, these terms of reference also state: The SSRDF will have a key role in the SRF Steering Committee and in the Technical Secretariat where opportunities for secondment of SSRDF staff will be explored This legal framework recognises the urgent need for national institutions to manage equitable delivery of public services and to progressively assume responsibility for recovery efforts during the post-referendum era. Bearing in mind the scope of the envisaged responsibilities for the SSRDF, the Steering Committee endorsed support to the institution on 7 July It specifically approved support to an inception phase in 2009 that would seek to forge consensus on the strategic direction of the Commission. The allocation approved for 2009 was USD540,930. Preliminary work was concluded according to an agreed work plan. A follow-up phase for 2010, providing expanded support to the SSRDF, is awaiting Steering Committee approval. SRF-SS support to SSRDF is also linked to the role this national Commission plays in the implementation of the Small Grants Programme (SGP). Page 33 of 53 Pages

34 5.3 Implementation and Achievements With the available funding, and in line with the approved work plan, the SSRDF developed a procurement plan and purchased essential equipment, furniture, and supplies for its office headquarters in Juba. Staff of SSRDF took part in study tours and training opportunities, and also attended relevant development conferences. Three (3) staff members visited the MS-Training Centre for Development Cooperation in Arusha, Tanzania, and identified the institution as suitable for further courses in Project Management, Project Design and Monitoring and Evaluation for other staff members from Southern Sudan. In September 2009, the Deputy Chair of SSRDF travelled to Kenya as part of a 20-member GoSS delegation to attend the African Association for Public Administration and Management Conference (AAPAM). In November, the Chief Administrator travelled to China to attend a two-day conference with the theme Development Partnerships. At these conferences, trends, challenges, and best practises in global development were studied. All trained staff members have been retained by SSRDF and have used their training to improve systems at a departmental level, particularly in those departments that deal directly with fund management and monitoring and evaluation. SSRDF nominates staff for training based on their qualifications, prior job performance, and professional motivation The exposure gained through these visits, training courses and attachments will be vital for the capacity development of the SSRDF. The training events and the exposure visits have greatly enhanced an understanding of how reconstruction and development issues are handled in other countries that, like Southern Sudan, have been affected by protracted strife. These lessons learned and best practices will inform the organisational review of the SSRDF and the capacity development plan that will be formulated in In 2009, SSRDF seconded three staff members, a Deputy Head, an Economic Recovery Specialist, and an Administrative Assistant to the Technical Secretariat The SSRDF and the Technical Secretariat also initiated a Small Grants Programme with an allocation of USD2,675,000 to ensure that indigenous Community Based Organisations would benefit from SRF-SS funding and would take project impact closer to the villages. To coordinate this programme, a Grants Coordinator was selected following a competitive process. As a result, BRAC Southern Sudan was appointed as Grants Coordinator for the Programme. BRAC, an international NGO with extensive experience in micro-finance and a good track record in Southern Sudan, had presented a proposal with modest overhead and interesting ideas for increasing the capacity of national CBOs Subsequently, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued, inviting national organisations to apply for funding for initiatives in agriculture, education and water and sanitation as part of the Small Grants Programme. Six hundred and thirty (630) proposals were received from national CBOs/NGOs. A Review Committee comprised of representatives of the SSRDF (Chair), Local Government Board, Technical Secretariat, National NGO Forum and BRAC Page 34 of 53 Pages

35 (Secretary) screened the proposals, and BRAC later conducted field visits to screen eighty-one (81) organisations that had submitted viable proposals The Review Committee used the following criteria to screen proposals: (1) proposals should be in line with the stipulated format and should be within the budget limit set in the application package that all applicants had received; (2) proposals should have modest and justifiable overheads; (3) applicants should be not-for-profit organisations, and should be registered with the Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development (MoLACD) or with the Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (SSRRC), (4) applying organisations should have an office in the project area, adequate staff, and documented experience with similar efforts; (5) proposals should target Agriculture, Education, Health or Water and Sanitation Sectors; (6) proposals should benefit marginalised communities and include women and youth, and: (7) proposed projects should be consistent with SRF-SS Guidelines. ", Final grantees were only selected in early Thus, details about the selection process and nature of proposals awarded grants will appear in the 2010 SRF Annual Report. Page 35 of 53 Pages

36 5.4 Financial Performance The SRF-SS Steering Committee approved USD3,215,930 for the two projects under Round II, split into USD540,930 for capacity building support to SSRDF and USD2,675,000 to support the Small Grants Programme The expenditure against the SSRDF support budget was modest, largely due to late approval of the proposal. Expenditure for the Small Grants Programme, reported in 2009, only included the cost of field verification. Actual grant disbursement, monitoring, and capacity building will take place during Overall disbursement for both the Small Grants Programme and the project to support SSRDF has been marginally lower than expected in 2009, but initial indications for 2010 indicate significant improvements. The table below shows the summary expenditure realised in 2009 for Round II as reported by the Management Agent The table below shows the overall performance of this component of the SRF- SS 2009 programme: SRF-SS Round II Financial Performance 2009 (All amounts in United States dollars) Project Total Allocation 2009 Budget 2009 Expenditure Expenditure as Percentage of Budget Support to SSRDF Small Grants Programme 540, , ,330 38% 2,675, ,773 90,262 18% Grand Total 3,215,930 1,038, ,959 32% Page 36 of 53 Pages

37 5.5 Issues and Concerns Operational Delays: Some important activities planned for the first phase of Support to SSRDF - including capacity assessment, the development of a strategic framework, and discussion forums to reach consensus on the role and mandate of SSRDF - were postponed due to delays in funding and recruitment. The overwhelming interest in the Small Grant Programme necessitated significant investment of staff time in fair and transparent appraisal of many applications Logistical Constraints and Security: BRAC s field verification of shortlisted CBOs met with logistical and security challenges. The field visits were eventually completed in two months. Communication between BRAC and national organisations has proved challenging in areas where Internet and phone networks are unreliable or non-existent. In addition, the obvious issue of scarcity of banks in the rural areas of Southern Sudan will require effective and innovative solutions to ensure timely disbursement to CBOs Monitoring: BRAC s performance and late reporting are being addressed by UNDP. SSRDF should play a more robust role in the implementation of the SGP. To make this possible, staffing, procurement and funding arrangements should be concluded in a timely manner to ensure that SSRDF has the requisite capacity. An outline of the current overall M&E responsibilities for the Small Grants Program provides for the following delineation of responsibilities and functions. This framework will continuously be reviewed in light of progress and may need to be adjusted further. Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF): Provides overall leadership and oversight of the Small Grants Programme; Serves as Chair of the Small Grants Review Committee; Monitors, together with UNDP as PUNO, the performance of the Grants Coordinator and its reports on the overall portfolio of grants. BRAC (Grants Coordinator): Undertakes review and vetting of small grant proposals; Issues small grant agreements with CBOs; Makes disbursements to CBOs; Provides capacity development support to CBOs; Monitors activities and results in line with grant agreements. UNDP (Management Agent): Issues Project Cooperation Agreement to Grants Coordinator; Issues quarterly advances to the Grants Coordinator based on disbursement plans; Receives, reviews and endorses narrative and financial reports by the Grants Coordinator; Monitors, together with SSRDF, the performance of the Grants Coordinator and the performance of overall portfolio of grants. Page 37 of 53 Pages

38 6. Report on Round III 6.1 In July of 2009, the SRF-SS Steering Committee approved an allocations plan of USD120 million for Round III. For this Round, SRF-SS should focus on two of the most important issues affecting recovery in Southern Sudan: (1) improving security at the State and community level, and (2) scaling-up the delivery of basic services within the context of significant austerity measures and revenue uncertainty. There will be an emphasis on State-led approaches to recovery planning. Despite remarkable progress in establishing government systems and modernizing the security and uniformed services, authorities throughout Southern Sudan are struggling to deal with sharp increases in insecurity and public disorder, much of it linked to inter-communal conflicts over resources. The Steering Committee also recognised the imperative for the authorities to deliver peace dividends to their people despite the fact that capacity lags dangerously behind demand and the expectations raised by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). 6.2 Round III should also address the problem of predictable funding for recovery activities by shifting away from short-term instruments to projects with a life span linked to the transition period. Additionally, the plan anticipates that there will be a shift to a nationally owned process where authorities are accountable for planning and implementation. Round III will also help to reinforce the social contract between communities and their Government by strengthening the participation of communities in recovery planning. 6.3 The plan provides for two windows. The first window will be State focused and will help provide recovery financing to all States against their own plans. It will provide direct funding to four of the States affected by serious insecurity (Jonglei, Warrap, Lakes, and Eastern Equatoria). This stabilisation initiative will be piloted first in two States (Jonglei and Lakes). The second window will be sector focused, but with a clear State linkage. It will assist Government agencies to deliver vital services to all ten States in four key areas through which peace dividends are being channelled to the population: Health, Education, Water and Sanitation, and Agriculture. 6.4 Under Window I, existing State and County plans will provide the core framework for interventions. For stabilisation efforts in four States, USD40 million will be allocated; for community recovery efforts in ten States, USD50 million will be allocated, for a total of USD90 million under this window. For the stabilisation programmes, a two-stage participatory planning process will be used, linking stakeholder consultations at the County level to decision-making at the State level. The Steering Committee directed that this approach be tested in Jonglei and Lakes State. 6.5 Under Window II, the planning process will build on the work of the Government s Budget Sector Working Groups (BSWG) and will reinforce the annual budget planning process. The BSWGs will identify obstacles to service delivery and put in place sustainable systems through which services can be delivered efficiently and equitably across the ten Southern States. For this window, the Steering Committee agreed to an allocation of USD30 million. Page 38 of 53 Pages

39 6.6 Following the adoption of the plan, the Secretariat organised a county level consultation process in Jonglei, which used the UNDP Community Security and Arms Control (CSAC) methodology. This process culminated in a Statelevel workshop with, sequentially, the State Security Committee and the State Planning and Development Committee in September. This round of consultations, at the State level, endorsed the issues and priorities that the County consultations had identified. The entire consultative process pointed firmly to the construction of the Bor-Pibor road and a State-managed radio station as key development priorities. 6.7 The SRF-SS Steering Committee subsequently endorsed these priorities in early November and appointed UNDP as the Management Agent for overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the Jonglei State component of Round III, estimated to cost USD17 million. 6.8 Meanwhile further technical consultations continued to identify the appropriate modality of road construction and the association of unemployed young people with the implementation of the works. Further discussions also ensued with the GoSS Ministry of Transport and Roads (MTR), which has overall responsibility in Southern Sudan for the certification, standards, and inspection of interstate roads. By the end of the year, UNDP had fielded several technical assessment missions to draw up an overall programme of works. The review of the recommendations of these missions was ongoing at the end of this reporting period, and the road that the State of Jonglei and the Government of Southern Sudan are focusing on, the stretch from the town of Bor (capital of Jonglei State) to Pibor, half-way to the border with Ethiopia, may require additional resources for adequate surfacing that is beyond the SRF-SS allocation. 6.9 On the radio station, UNDP also fielded consultants to identify the appropriate configuration of transmitters, towers, and related components. The preliminary estimate for the radio station is USD2 million. Consultants designed a grid of nine (9) transmitters that would be linked by satellite and that together would reach 90% of the communities of Jonglei State. Given the significant ethnic and cultural diversity in Jonglei, the consultants also formulated an overall plan for radio programming in the various local languages spoken in this State. Work is currently underway on the construction of the main studios and the erection of the transmitter tower at Bor. Following the completion of the works in Bor, there will be a gradual expansion of coverage and construction of additional transmitter sites throughout the State in Following the completion of this initial plan in 2009, UNDP as Management Agent will be working on the elaboration of a capacity development and learning plan to ensure that adequate programming, broadcasting, and maintenance staff come on stream during Page 39 of 53 Pages

40 6.10 Following the consultative process in Jonglei State, the Secretariat organised a similar sequence of consultations in Lakes State, together with the SSRDF, during October and November of County Commissioners and their representatives endorsed the priorities identified at County level. The TS, again with the assistance of SSRDF, organised a consultative event in Lakes State in January 2010, similar to the one held in Jonglei State in September The initial Lakes State priorities comprise the construction of a strategic road connecting Lakes and Warrap States, the construction of several hafirs (drinking ponds for cattle), and the construction of new courthouses and police stations in parts of the State particularly susceptible to unrest on account of cattle raiding. The Lakes State proposal will be submitted for endorsement by the Steering Committee in early Page 40 of 53 Pages

41 7 Monitoring and Evaluation Rounds I, II, III 7.1 Systems for M&E of SRF-SS Rounds of funding have been put in place to cover three levels: Fund, allocation and project. At the overall level of the Fund, the Technical Secretariat monitors donor contributions and reports by the Administrative Agent. Pursuant to agreed allocations by the Steering Committee, the TS monitors the use and performance of these allocations on the basis of reports provided by the Participating UN Organisations (PUNOs). At the project level, the recipient organisations are responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of their projects while the PUNOs are responsible for ensuring that recipient organisations have appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems in place. 7.2 In line with the above, the TS developed a monitoring and evaluation framework including quarterly reporting, monitoring visits, project reviews, assessments of lessons learned, mid-term and terminal evaluation. This was particularly applied to the Round I projects, and has helped to harmonise the reporting system across organisations. Specifically, the Secretariat established quarterly progress reporting formats and guidelines, result tracking tools and feedback forms. The Secretariat and UNDP, the Management Agent for Round I, have regularly provided feedback to Round I organisations regarding the quality of their quarterly progress reports. The feedback has focused on: (1) the consistency of the reporting within the results framework of their approved project documents; (2) completeness of reports; (2) adherence to reporting guidelines, and: (4) progress made towards project outcomes. As a result the quality, timeliness, consistency, and description of results have improved during The Secretariat regularly consults with the Management Agent about concerns for some organisations that frequently miss reporting deadlines and necessitate time-consuming follow-up. Moreover, every quarter the Technical Secretariat and UNDP have analysed the performance of the projects in terms of their financial status and programme implementation and have provided recommendations on areas that need improvement and follow up. Projects that appear to have implementation challenges as gauged by the financial and programme quality indicators have been placed on a watch list and the Management Agent is closely monitoring these. 7.4 The TS also convened a one-day consultation workshop on 15 May 2009 to strengthen coordination among Round I organizations in order to create a common understanding on the SRF-SS operational requirements, and to address concerns of recipient organisations. Events of this nature are useful to advance understanding and collaboration among the many organisations that have a stake in the success of the SRF-SS. Representatives of 24 different NGOs, the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF), the Local Government Board (LGB), the GoSS Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), the SRF-SS Technical Secretariat and the UNDP Fund Management Unit all took part in the workshop. Page 41 of 53 Pages

42 7.5 Given the relatively short duration of Round I projects, the Technical Secretariat recommended that mid-term reviews be conducted and circulated generic Terms of Reference, which UNDP and the NGOs could use as a basis for the reviews. This review should assess the relevance of projects and monitor if delivery is on track and whether the projects can be completed on time. Most of the Round I recipient organisations have conducted these reviews and reports have been submitted to the Managing Agent. Conclusions and recommendations should become available during the second quarter of The Technical Secretariat has also conducted monitoring visits to 12 projects in 7 States as of October This helped assess progress and understand issues that affect project implementation. The visits gave the TS the opportunity to understand the concerns of the State authorities. For instance, in Eastern Equatoria, the TS, in collaboration with SSRDF, facilitated a comprehensive meeting with State officials and implementing partners in September of State authorities, County and Payam officials, SSRDF, and LGB representatives have also participated widely in monitoring visits in additional States. These visits have helped review progress towards expected results using different approaches such as review of quarterly reports, meeting with the State Steering Committees, and discussion with target beneficiaries. They have also helped provide specific recommendations to the implementing partners and have improved partnership and coordination with Government counterparts through joint monitoring of projects and capacity building in M&E. 7.7 Following ongoing consultations with NGOs and the SRF-SS Steering Committee, the responsibility for direct monitoring has been assumed by UNDP as of 1 November Within UNDP, this responsibility is vested in the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Unit (CPRU), which also oversees related programmes and projects such as the EC-Funded Rehabilitation and Recovery Programme (RRP). UNDP draws on its field presence across the States of Southern Sudan, notably the State Planning Specialists in the monitoring of the SRF-SS Round I activities and liaisons with State Governments. 7.8 On the basis of the experiences of 2009, the Technical Secretariat will propose to the Steering Committee that in 2010 and independent assessment be conducted of Monitoring and Evaluation arrangements throughout the SRF-SS. This should be a comprehensive assessment and include the review of the experiences and capacity of the Management Agent as well as the specific delineation of monitoring responsibilities between the Management Agent and the Technical Secretariat. 7.9 For the Small Grants Programme, SSRDF, BRAC, and UNDP are establishing a dedicated monitoring and evaluation framework. BRAC has hired eight (8) new national staff to monitor projects across Southern Sudan. SSRDF in turn will oversee BRAC s performance and the overall performance of the Small Grants Programme. Page 42 of 53 Pages

43 7.10 The Steering Committee of the SRF-SS directed in its meeting of 7 July 2009 that a working group should be established, composed of donors, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the Technical Secretariat to develop a comprehensive Logical Framework for the SRF-SS. A summary version of this evolving instrument is reflected in the table below. Hierarchy of Objectives Goal: Successful transition to recovery in Southern Sudan Purpose: Meet priority recovery needs with coordinated donor support aligned to GoSS strategy and priorities Output 1: Improved agricultural productivity and diversified livelihoods. Output 2: Strengthened capacity of national entities to support recovery. Output 3: Improved community security and active conflict mitigation. Output 4: Increased financing to support basic service delivery. Output 5: GoSS implements specific projects to aid basic services delivery. Output 6: Comprehensive and coordinated strategic recovery arrangements. SRF-SS Summary Logical Framework Indicators Number of people in need of emergency assistance. Number of security incidents and instances of armed violence. Percentage of population that have access to food, basic services, opportunities of employment and income generation. Percentage of households with food as a priority need. Levels of cereal production. Improved systems and practices of national organisations. Extent of national NGOs/CBOs directly accessing funding from donors (as opposed to serving as implementing partner). Government leadership in community security. Percentage of communities with improved security. Improved quality of service delivery and capacity to supervise and maintain the quality of the services Percentage of population with access to basic services. Time required obtaining service. Frequency of service. SRF outputs complement those of other pooled Funds. SRF progressively incorporated in an overall PRSP. Page 43 of 53 Pages

44 8 Communication and Outreach 8.1 During 2009, the Technical Secretariat maintained and expanded its communication and outreach efforts. A detailed communication strategy, plan, and budget have been prepared which outline relevant activities to be implemented and inform the budget requirements of the Technical Secretariat. The strategy seeks to ensure that all the SRF-SS stakeholders, such as Government of Southern Sudan, donors, State and County officials, UN Participating Organisations, Non-Governmental Organisations, and Community Based Organisations are familiar with the scope and direction of the SRF-SS funded activities. Plans have been developed to air interviews during early 2010 on Radio Miraya, the radio station supported by the United Nations and the Swiss Non-Governmental Organisation La Fondation Hirondelle ( A primary point of access to information about the SRF-SS is the recently upgraded website of the Multilateral Donor Trust Fund Office (MDTF), through which detailed information is available on the operations of the SRF-SS ( Efforts are under way to significantly expand the level of detail on SRF-SS funded operations, particularly linkages to specific projects and the organisations implementing these projects. 8.3 The Technical Secretariat also publishes a bi-monthly newsletter, which has wide dissemination within and outside Southern Sudan. It is distributed electronically and in hard copy. The Technical Secretariat will continue to explore innovative ways of reaching State and County officials to further cement the understanding of the Fund. Since radio and TV-network coverage in Southern Sudan is modest and there is no effective postal system, due attention is needed for reliable distribution of newsletters and other information to the States. The Newsletter is also complemented on an ad hoc basis with specific Information Notes for the members of the Steering Committee and Press Releases to mark milestones such as new financial contributions or decisions by the Steering Committee. The regularity of issuing the Newsletter should be improved in The Newsletter also highlights the important role of Southern Sudanese leadership. It recently featured a comprehensive interview with the (former) Chairman of the Southern Sudan Reconstruction and Development Fund (SSRDF), Dr. David Nailo Mayo, to enable a better understanding of the role of the SSRDF, its relationship to the SRF-SS as well as the many capacity building initiatives currently underway to aid the Commission to assume postreferendum responsibilities. "" See also: website of the United Nations Mission in Sudan and the website of La Fondation Hirondelle: Page 44 of 53 Pages

45 8.5 Both Sudanese and international media have paid attention to the SRF-SS, its purpose and scope of operations. Articles that highlight the role of the SRF-SS have appeared regularly in domestic newspapers such as the Citizen, Juba Post, and Southern Eye. The latter gave front page coverage, for instance, to the decision by the Government of the Netherlands in November to contribute an additional USD22million to the SRF-SS. Journalists of the Juba Post have joined monitoring teams to visit projects in order to gain first-hand understanding of the scope and role of SRF-SS projects. 8.6 Journalists from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom have visited SRF-SS projects and articles mentioning the SRF-SS have appeared in the Financial Times, the Dutch NRC-Handelsblad, and the German Die Tageszeitung. 8.7 Local radio stations and local newspapers also highlighted the graduation ceremony at the Yei Vocational Training College 12 in December when the first batch of students graduated from this College. Donor representatives and senior officials from the Government of Southern Sudan also witnessed this event. "$ Yei is a town in the South of Central Equatoria State, close to the border with Uganda. Page 45 of 53 Pages

46 9 Overall Financial Performance 9.1 At the end of 2008, USD14.4 million was available to the SRF-SS (as reflected in the penultimate table in this report, the 2008 report provided by the Administrative Agent) reflecting the 10 million contribution by the Netherlands of 16 December 2008, USD1.3 million in exchange gains and USD99,960 in Interest Income. During 2009, the SRF-SS received USD60.4 million in further donor contributions, as reflected in the report for 2009 by the Administrative Agent. 9.2 These 2009 contributions comprised payments by the United Kingdom of respectively USD14.5 million ( 10 million) recorded on 6 January 2009, USD7.4 million ( 5 million) recorded on 6 April 2009, and USD16.4 million ( 10 million) recorded on 30 June Contributions by the United Kingdom for the year 2009 therefore totalled USD38.3 million. 9.3 In November 2009, the Netherlands and UNDP signed an addendum to their existing contribution agreement of 2008 to reflect an additional contribution by the Netherlands of 15 million (USD22.1 million), which was received and recorded by UNDP on 9 December During the time that the Fund has been in operation, donors contributed an overall amount of USD74.8 million by the end of Total agreed contributions, or commitments, as per signed Standard Administrative Agreements, amount to USD111.8 million. 13 USD15.2 million from the United Kingdom was also paid in 2009 but recorded by the Administrative Agent in Approximately USD24 million is foreseen in additional payments to the Fund, in line with existing agreements, and planned for release in 2010 by the United Kingdom. 9.5 Allocations against these contributions, recorded in 2009, amount to USD15.3 million, leaving a balance of unallocated donor contributions at the end of 2009 of USD59.5 million. Allocations included a USD13 million transfer to UNDP (as Managing Agent) for Round I operations, USD747,568 as Administrative Agent fees, and USD1.5 million for the budget of the Technical Secretariat for 2008 and However, actual allocations, in comparison with Use of Funds in the reports by the Administrative Agent, are understated by USD7.5 million (USD5.4 million in respect of Round I operations and USD3.2 million Round II operations). This amount of USD7.5 million is already contained in allocations that the Steering Committee authorised in 2009 but not yet transferred by the Administrative Agent. 9.7 In addition, discussions on the stabilisation assistance packages for Jonglei State and Lakes State, of USD17 million each, are in an advanced phase, and while the full and detailed programmes remain to be endorsed by the Inter- Ministerial Appraisal Committee and the Steering Committee, a further reservation of USD34 million should be made as it is expected that the Steering Committee will approve allocations for these two programmes in "% For full details on contributions and other recorded income for the SRF-SS, see the UNDP/MDTF GATEWAY at Page 46 of 53 Pages

47 9.8 Overall therefore, the real level of allocations should therefore take into account the already recorded amounts of USD15.3 million, USD7.5 million in respect of Rounds I and II, and the USD34 million planned for the Jonglei and Lakes programmes, making a total of USD56.8 million in already recorded and firmly planned allocations. As such, actually received donor contributions, not yet encumbered by Steering Committee allocations, amount to USD17.8 million at the end of (USD74.6 million in total donor contributions minus the total of USD56.8 in recorded and planned allocations). The overall position can be summarised as in the chart below. 1 Donor Contributions as per Signed Agreements (in millions of United States Dollars) Donor Contributions Paid and Recorded, and other Income, as of December Recorded Allocations as of December Allocations to be recorded Firmly planned allocations Total of Recorded Allocations, Allocations remaining to be recorded and Planned Allocations Unencumbered Recorded Donor Contributions 17.8 Page 47 of 53 Pages

48 10 The Technical Secretariat 10.1 The Terms of Reference of the SRF-SS also arrange for a Technical Secretariat to provide services to the Steering Committee. According to the Terms of Reference, the Technical Secretariat should provide quality assurance throughout the programme/project approval process cycle and generally facilitates the review of all proposals. It implements the decisions of the Steering Committee and ensures the transfers from the Administrative Agent to the Management Agent(s) as authorised by the Steering Committee The TS also provides advisory services to IMAC and to applicants for SRF-SS funding. The Secretariat furthermore consolidates quarterly updates and annual narrative progress reports received from Participating UN Organizations for submission to the Steering Committee and to donors At present, the Technical Secretariat receives administrative support from UNDP, in terms of recruitment of staff and procurement of goods and services. The staffing of the Secretariat includes seconded staff from the SSRDF, in recognition of the post-referendum responsibilities foreseen for the SSRDF. All other staff members are recruited by UNDP The Terms of Reference also make provision for the secondment of staff from other UN Agencies and donors as an arrangement that should be encouraged as a way of further strengthening the Secretariat. Apart from seconded staff from the SSRDF, no other UN Agencies or donors currently contribute to the staffing of the Technical Secretariat Staffing of the Technical Secretariat, apart from support staff, as at the end of 2009, is shown in the chart below. Page 48 of 53 Pages

49 10.6 The Steering Committee approved a budget for the Technical Secretariat for the year 2009 of USD 1,096,000. A preliminary budget for 2008 was provided by UNDP and actual expenditure for that first year amounted to USD 492,448. This amount is included in the line Direct Costs (USD 1,493,653.81) reflected in the Financial Report for 2009 (Annex II) The chart above reflects staffing arrangements of the TS and shows that four (4) positions were recruited through UNDP and a Deputy Head, who also serves as State Liaison Advisor, was provided by SSRDF. 14 There is considerable need to review, on a regular basis, the adequacy of this staffing pattern given the nature of the evolving programmes being authorised by the Steering Committee. Such a review of the desirable levels and configuration should also ensure that appropriate provisions remain in place to ensure that the Secretariat continues to provide objective and quality service to the Steering Committee. Experience with MDTFs elsewhere has indicated that well-staffed and professional Technical Secretariats contribute significantly to the effectiveness of an MDTF arrangement In this regard, attention is drawn to the suggestion in the Terms of Reference for the SRF-SS that seconded technical staff from UN, donor and partner agencies will be encouraged. A more active pursuit of these possibilities, and endorsement by the Steering Committee, will open perspectives for more costeffective arrangements and will also underline the important partnerships that comprise the SRF-SS Secondment arrangements need to be transparent and there should be clearly endorsed selection and appointment criteria for such arrangements. An agreed procedure for appointment is needed and this should also provide for a priori involvement of the Chair of the Steering Committee. On the basis of past experience, the TS concurs with the staffing profile of five (5) professional staff (suggested by the Terms of Reference), including one Head, one Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, one Planning Specialist, one Deputy Head and one Finance Specialist/Accountant. In addition, technical staff from UN Agencies, donors or NGOs may be considered, on secondment or for shortterm assessments. Particularly needs assessments, for the stabilisation programmes for instance, and assessments for optimum management arrangements, could very well benefit from greater involvement of UN Agencies, donors and NGOs. "& In line with the commitments that SSRDF had made to the Steering Committee in 2008, SSRDF provided the services in 2008 of (1) a Deputy-Head for the Secretariat, (2) an Economic Recovery Expert, and: (3) an Administrative Assistant (support staff is not listed in the chart). At the end of the year the SSRDF-seconded staff only included the Deputy-Head and the Administrative Assistant as the second professional supplied by SSRDF was called upon to assume a position in the State Government of Central Equatoria State# Page 49 of 53 Pages

50 11 Conclusion and Recommendations 11.1 The Sudan Recovery Fund Southern Sudan has made impressive progress since its formal establishment in May A detailed governance arrangement and a consultative arrangement with the respective States of Southern Sudan were in place at the end of 2008 and enabled immediate disbursements in early Approvals and allocations by the Steering Committee in 2009 further cemented the overall operations of the Fund by ensuring significant activities in line with recovery objectives Operations by the Fund in 2009 fully reflect a progressive consolidation of a unique body of stakeholders comprising important Ministries and Commissions of the Central Government of Southern Sudan (MoFEP, MRC, LGB, and SSRDF), State Governments, donors, international and national Non-Governmental Organisations and the United Nations Understandably, given the harsh and often unpredictable circumstances of Southern Sudan, the reality of implementation has fallen somewhat short of the very high expectations that were generated at the end of However, this shortfall against expectation is balanced by considerable wealth in terms of lessons learned, especially with regards to the critical need to ensure consistent results-focused reporting, systematic monitoring, and evaluation, the importance of clarifying roles and responsibility of various stakeholders, and the need for sustained policy guidance from the SC during the intervals between SC meetings With respect to overall monitoring and evaluation of the impact of SRF funded activities, there remains a significant need to strengthen M&E arrangements. Enhanced monitoring in turn requires pertinent and timely reporting. Reinforcing the monitoring and reporting regime will need the full collaboration and commitment of all the stakeholders to the Fund to ensure that it will have the tangible impact in ways that people in Southern Sudan can recognise. In this regard, the Management Agent is primarily responsible for timely and results-focused reporting, verified by regular monitoring visits. However, the Technical Secretariat remains responsible for the monitoring of the SRF-SS as a whole and the respective roles can only be performed well in close coordination As discussed in several instances in this report, the capacity of the Fund to manifestly and positively affect women and young people needs improvement. This realisation should reinforce the overall monitoring and evaluation framework with suitably disaggregated indicators. Special measures to ensure this positive impact on women and young people should be considered The appropriate configuration and staffing of the Technical Secretariat need to be reviewed and secondment arrangements involving UN Agencies, donors and NGOs may provide significant benefits to the SRF-SS. Page 50 of 53 Pages

51 Annex I Financial Report

52 Annex II Financial Report

53 Annex III Map of Southern Sudan and Location of SRF-SS Round I Projects Page 53 of 53 Pages