Republic of South Sudan THE STATE OF SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN SOUTH SUDAN September 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Context .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study..................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Organizations and Structure of the Report Structure .......................................................................... 3 1.5 Constraints and Limitations ................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Social Protection Context ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Why Social Protection ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Policies, Programmes, and Strategies ................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Political and Civil Context ................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 Key Partners & Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 6 3.0 SOCIAL PROTECTION FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 7 3.1 National Social Protection Policy Framework.................................................................................... 7 3.2 Social protection Modalities and Approaches .................................................................................... 9 3.3 Implementation Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Coordination and Collaboration Arrangements ............................................................................... 12 3.5 Financing and Budgetary Allocation Arrangements ................................................................. 12 4.0 RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Financial and Economic Risks to Sustainability .............................................................................. 13 4.2 Institutional & Governance Risks to Sustainability .......................................................................... 14 4.3 Social and Environmental Risks to Sustainability ............................................................................ 15 4.4 Gaps in Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................. 16 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 16 5.1 Conclusions and Summary ............................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Recommendation: Consideration for policy level ............................................................................ 17 ANNEXES ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Annex 1: List of People Interviewed ........................................................................................................... xi Annex 2: List of Donors and Partners .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ANNEX 3: LIST OF GOVERNMENT PARTNERS ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Achuoth Philip Deng, a national consultant undertook a stocktaking exercise of social protection programs in South Sudan from December 2017 to June 2018, funded by the multi-donor Rapid Social Response Trust Fund. 1 The report benefited substantially from review by from World Bank’s South Sudan Social Protection and Jobs team. The consultant is grateful to all stakeholders, particularly the Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare and the development partners, for helpful information, feedback, comments and advice received. 1The Rapid Social Response (RSR), a multi-donor program was established in 2009 to help the world’s poorest countries, in partnership with the World Bank, to build effective social protection systems. The RSR is supported by the Russian Federation, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia and Sweden. ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BOSS Bank of South Sudan ADB African Development Bank CBT Cash-Based Transfer CFA Cash for Asset AMTIP Agriculture Marketing and Information Investment Programme AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget CCT Conditional Cash Transfer AFIS Agriculture and Food Security System CD Capacity Building CPI Consumer Price Index DDR Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration DFID Department for International Development EID Early Infant Diagnosis EWS Early Warning System FY Financial Year FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations GAM Global Acute Malnutrition GDP Gross Domestic Product GEP Global Education Partnership GRSS Government of the Republic of South Sudan HARRIS Humanitarian and Resilience Programme in South Sudan IDPs Internally Displaced Persons ICTT Implementation Coordination Task Team MAM Moderately Acutely Malnourished MIS Management Information System MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security MPI Multi Dimensional Poverty Index NSPPF National Social Protection Policy Framework PfRR Partnership for Recovery and Resilience PoCs Protection of Civilians RSR Rapid Social Response RSS Republic of South Sudan RSVA Rapid Social and Vulnerability Assessment SDSDP Safety Nets and Skills Development Project SSN Social Safety Net SOP Standard Operating Procedures SORUDEV Small Holder Component of South Sudan Rural Development Programme SP Social Protection P4P Purchase for Progress SPL Social Protection and Labor SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement iii SSNDS South Sudan National Development Strategy ToT Terms of Trade UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer UIT Unconditional In-kind Transfer UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations Refugee Commission UNMISS United Nations Mission in South Sudan UNOPS United Nations Office of Projects Services WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WFP World Food Programme iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background As a new nation, South Sudan has had the dual challenge of dealing with the legacy of over 50 years of conflict and continued instability, as well as huge development deficits and wide-ranging vulnerabilities. The nearly four-years of conflict in South Sudan has significantly eroded the country’s development potentials, worsened humanitarian situations, and deepened vulnerabilities. The South Sudan National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) was developed in 2011 by the Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS) whose overall goal is to ‘respond to and address the multiple vulnerabilities faced by South Sudanese citizens, with a particular focus on the poorest and most excluded sectors.’ However, Government’s capacity to design, implement and coordinate an effective social protection program in South Sudan remains limited. In response, the Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare (MoGCSW), as the lead Ministry with mandate on social protection, has requested the World Bank for support in operationalizing the NSPPF. In response, the South Sudan: Operationalization of the National Social Protection Policy Framework RSR (P158867), financed under the Rapid Social Response – Multi Donor Trust Fund, was approved to: (i) undertake stock-taking of Social Protection Programs; and (ii) provide technical assistance to strengthen systems to operationalize the NSPPF; and (iii)facilitate knowledge transfer. This report provides the findings from the stocktaking of social protection programs in South Sudan between 15 December 2017 to 30 June 2018. It focuses on key social protection programs that are currently being implemented, those that have been suspended as a result of conflict in July 2016, and those that are planned for implementation in the next 12 months against the backdrop of the role social protection programs can play in the on-going fragile and conflict context of South Sudan. The stocktaking is based on key informant interviews and analysis of primary and secondary data. Unfortunately, visits to various program sites around the country could not be undertaken due to insecurity, which limited both the availability and verification of data. It is important to note that the stocktaking recognizes that in addition to the traditional social protection interventions, a great deal of support continues to be provided through the humanitarian sector, which greatly complements the work of social protection activities. This stocktaking however did not focus on the humanitarian sector as it was beyond the scope of the research. It is hoped that the stocktaking will not only contribute to more informed and effective design and implementation of social protection activities, but will also serve as guidance for various partners and the GRSS on where to best target interventions, mobilize funds and what social protection models are relevant for strengthening resilience and addressing vulnerabilities when peace returns in the country. To that end, initial recommendations are included in this report to facilitate greater coordination among partners and the Government, particularly for agreed monitoring and data sources, which can promote robust, reliable, and accurate interventions. Key Findings The stocktaking exercise found that while partners are implementing social protection programs which v aim to address the country’s changing contexts and escalating needs and vulnerabilities, these have neither been guided by the priorities set forth in the NSPPF. Moreover, following the outbreak of conflict in December 2013, and again in July 2016, much of the efforts by partners have shifted from development to humanitarian aid. This has been especially true in the most conflict-affected areas impacted by the fighting on both the Government side and the opposition force2 (i.e. Sudan People’s Liberation Army-In Opposition) and difficult to access locations where needs are most acute. Existing efforts to strengthen resilience and improve food security through social protection type interventions have focused on activities such as conditional and unconditional cash transfers (i.e. public works, cash-for-works), food for assets, micro-finance, market support commodity vouchers, nutrition services for malnourished children, livelihoods opportunities and income generating activities, skills training, and improved agricultural inputs such as quality seeds and tools, among others. Nonetheless, direct food aid distribution seems to continue to constitute a major aspect of safety nets interventions under the humanitarian umbrella in the country,3 and is expected to be the largest share of support provided in the most conflict- affected and difficult to access areas. Below are two examples of the most common social protection programs in South Sudan: • Social safety nets to the poor and most vulnerable: this constitutes as the most common type of social protection support, and include food aid, unconditional cash grants, and public works programs that target poor and vulnerable households. • Productive inclusion programs: Some safety nets activities also contain productive inclusion activities supporting the promotion of skills and livelihoods, although this is highly limited in scope. Majority of the social protection interventions continue to be implemented by NGOs and community- based organizations, funded by development partners, and therefore generally are outside the national government system. Consequently, the sector is characterized by a plethora of organizations implementing multiple programs with differing mandate, objective, targeting criteria, operational arrangements and funding mechanisms, leading to fragmentation and makings coordination and collaboration a challenge. Such fragmentation not only creates confusion and inefficiencies, but also risks the sustainability of interventions, as they cannot be done at scale, thereby limiting the impact of the assistance provided. Gaps in terms national coverage also exist due to lack of insecurity and access, particularly in terms of support in the most conflict-affected and difficult to access areas. Field presence by development partners and robust third-party monitoring would therefore enhance strengthened risk monitoring, especially with regards to local conflict and situations. UN agencies, and in particular the WFP, are demonstrating comparative advantage, not only in terms of strong field presence through sub-offices and mobile teams and logistical capacity to scale up nationally, but also in negotiating safe access. 2 Please note that the paper refers to areas impacted by fighting on both Government side and opposition force when referring to most conflict-affected areas. 3 South Sudan is markedly more dependent on relief food today –the average weekly WFP distribution in 2017 is about the same as the annual grain imports of in the 1950s, and the average monthly WFP distribution in 2017 is a little more than the total relief distribution in 1973. vi Monitoring and evaluation, particularly in the most conflict-affected and difficult to access areas, has been a challenge due to issues of access resulting from insecurity, high cost given lack of infrastructure, a mobile population etc. Then too, often not enough resources are committed within project budgets given the pressure to transfer as much of the benefits as possible to the needy. Lastly, lack of coordination among projects at times results in inconsistent goals, different time horizons, and use of different data collection systems and tools that are not compatible and cannot be used to compile large data sets for macro-level analysis. A lot of attention has been given by partners ensure that social protection activities are conflict-sensitive, such that activities do not exacerbate conflict dynamics in target locations, and where possible, reinforces local level peace building efforts. However, this needs to be complemented with robust Grievance Redress Mechanisms that enable participatory citizen engagement in project implementation, thereby alleviating potential tensions early on, and ensuring that project design continues to be contextually nuanced and locally appropriate. This is particularly critical in areas ravaged by conflict where trust among people and communities, as well as in institutions, are likely low. Similar screening and mitigation measures also need to be strengthened for potential environmental impacts. Some social protection projects in the country aim to address climate change impacts through social protection interventions. However, many do not conduct in-depth analysis of environmental impact of activities, particularly those related to community infrastructure rehabilitation. The Government’s Safety Nets and Skills Development Project (SNSDP), funded by the World Bank, has appropriately developed, and implemented a robust community based Grievance Redress Mechanism, as well as screening and mitigation plans for potential negative environmental & social impact of project activities. This could serve as good models for other social protection programs implemented by the Government and development partners. Limited government administrative capacity, as well as human and financial resources, have constrained the ability of responsible agencies to effectively engage in the efforts by the NGO and development partners in the social protection sector. This has been exacerbated by lack of operational systems and infrastructure necessary for effective design and implementation, resulting in a lack of government ownership and risking the success and sustainability of these efforts. Many of the social protection stakeholders accepted the principle that Government should be in the coordination lead. However, the massive scale of the humanitarian interventions, coupled with the at times tense Government-donor relationship, makes such collaboration difficult. As such, government institutions tend to be generally excluded from the formal decision-making and coordination of development partner funded social protection interventions. At the same time, frequent changes and reshuffling in the government, as well as on-going key vacant positions, particularly after the July 2016 conflict, complicates efforts by development partners to effective coordinate and collaborate with the Government. The MGCSW had established some coordination structures for the social protection sector, but requires strengthening. Another weakness of the sector has been the lack of effective legal reforms and policies which can ensure that constitutional rights aimed at safeguarding the welfare and development of vulnerable groups are protected. The NSPPF provides good guidance on how social protection should look like in South Sudan. However, without accompanying laws, policies, and procedures, application of the principles of the NSPPF remain a distant reality. vii National financing for social protection interventions also continue to be a challenge. South Sudan is in dire financial straits, characterized by rising inflation, rapidly devaluing exchange rate, and volatile market conditions. The NSPPF mandates the allocation of the 1 per cent of the annual national budget to social protection activities in the country. However, this has not yet happened, and is not expected to happen in the near future. As such, spending on social protection is negligible and inadequate. 5 Government employees are not paid for several months at a time, greatly hindering Government’s capacity to recruit and retain qualified staff. Moreover, adequate funds are not available for effective program delivery (i.e. cash transfer benefits), monitoring (i.e. field visits), advocacy (social protection policy outreach) and capacity building (social protection awareness raising), greatly impeding capacity to also effectively design and implement social protection programs. The current deteriorating economic situation and market conditions also greatly limit the longer-term benefits that can be achieved through social protection interventions, as the net value of social protection interventions, particularly cash transfers, continues to shrink. Even when transfers are being used to create productive assets, the current market environment makes sustaining such assets very difficult. The necessary duration of social protection interventions to adequately strengthen resilience against shocks and stresses is also becoming unsustainable. Given the challenges in maintaining the value of social protection and safety net support, which can adequately translate to sustainable productive assets, implementers are facing an impossible trade off given budget constraints – either continue support for a small group of people for a lengthy time to strengthen resilience and capacities, or reduce the length (and perhaps value) of the support and expand coverage to a large number of the needy. Both options have important political and social consequences around equity, balance, and stability, particularly in the current context of high tensions and distrust among and between various communities as well as between the citizen and the state. Conclusion and Recommendations Despite the myriad challenges facing the social protection sector in South Sudan, the development partners, and to some extent, the GRSS, have played a key role in ensuring that safety net benefits reach the most poor and vulnerable within a very difficult operating environment. Although nascent and fragile, the gains made through social protection interventions have been invaluable in not only improving the lives of the people, but have also improved community dialogue and cohesion, and provide lessons for future programming and policy dialogue. In this space, the MGCSW has an important role to play as it works strategically at the national and local levels to formulate and advance social protection policy. However, it requires further support from partners to strengthen its administrative and financial capacity to enable it to successfully undertake its role and responsibilities, including ensuring alignment of social protection programs to the NSPPF. Based on the findings of the stocktaking exercise, initial recommendations are included below, which are aimed at both short and medium term to support improved safety net programming within the current context of heightened insecurity, risks, vulnerabilities, and fragility, as well as more longer term to address strategic and policy issues related to social protection policy and programming, assuming that the 5In fact, with on-going increases in military expenditure, the GRSS is spending much less on social services, i.e. health, education, and social and humanitarian expenditure make up 3.1, 6.6 and 0.9 per cent of the total 2015 –2016 budget respectively, compared to 44.7 per cent for security and 14.6 per cent for rule of law. viii country context would stabilize and therefore, would provide an enabling environment to establish a national social protection system that is owned and driven by the Government. 1. Additional research to generate lessons of best practices and informed learning: The GRSS, development partners, NGOs, academia and other stakeholders should consider commissioning further research and analyses of the initial and longer term impacts of on-going social protection programs to get a better sense of the various social protection models that can be both feasible and practical under capcity constrained, resource poor and fragile contexts such as South Sudan, and also support local level stabilization and peacebuilding efforts. The work of the Conflict Sensitive Resource Facility in South Sudan would be well placed to lead on such analysis, in collaboration and close consultation with relevant partners. In the longer term, strong analysis and knowledge sharing will depend largely on data emerging from strong monitoring and evaluation. As such, M&E needs in social protection interventions should be anticipated, well-designed, staffed and resourced at all level of implementation. Development partners should consider defining a set of common indicators and reporting frameworks, which could support on cross program analysis and learning. This could include at a minimum light touch, rapid baseline data collection on primary household information, using locally based appropriate indicators for results-based outcomes monitoring to the extent possible. On-going efforts by partners to align safety net related resilience work along geographic areas through the Partnership for Recover and Resilience platform is expected to support information and knowledge sharing more widely. 2. Supporting more effective design and planning: Given the urgency of needs, coupled with the role on-going fragility and conflict in limiting sustainability of efforts, design and planning of social protection interventions should focus on a twin track approach – working to alleviate most critical needs of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society through safety nets while at the same time reinforcing and contributing to local level cohesion and stability, which can promoted through targeted messages and sensitization alongside implementation of project activities and distribution of support. In the longer term if the country is to stabilize and embark on a path to recovery and peace consolidation, it would be useful to have a strong sense of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society through the establishment of some form of national social registry. The foundations of such a system exist under the Government’s SNSDP Management Information System. Efforts are also underway in the humanitarian sector among some UN agencies, namely IOM, UNHCR, UNICEF, and WFP (i.e. SCOPE). Application of this database in the development sector, particular in terms of access and input by GRSS and integration with the existing Government system, can however be tricky for various reasons. In the immediate term, targeting of beneficiaries pose specific risks vis a vis manipulation and elite capture of project benefits. Marginalization of specific groups (i.e. minority ethnic groups) through biased targeting is also a concern. Additionally, data quality, privacy, and sharing protocols would need to be assured, particularly in light of concerns around violence being perpetrated against civilian by Government forces (i.e. violent targeting of specific ethnic groups). Lastly, the registry can only be widely useful if there is an agreement among partners regarding the targeting approach and the indicators to be collected based on a common definition of vulnerability, which mitigates the above risks described. ix As such, much work would be needed to prepare the ground for an integrated social registry based on an agreed, neutral and objective targeting methodology and set of common indicators. Moreover, such a database would require strong Government commitment and ownership, and would need to be embedded within national system (i.e. integrated within the existing SNSDP MIS) if it is to be sustainable in the long run. Policy dialogue among partners and with the Government, in particular, MGCSW, would need to take place over a period of time to chart a feasible way forward. To that end, efforts would need to be given to foster domestic political will in order to mobilize the commitment, ownership and support necessary to establish appropriate, sustainable and effective social protection systems and activities. 3. Capacity building for more effective implementation: Building capacity of stakeholders, in particular the MGCSW, as well as strengthening the delivery tools will be key for rapidly scaling up social protection assistance nation-wide once the country situation is more favourable. The MGCSW should be supported to develop staffing and financing plans, as well as relevant programs in line with the priorities of the NSPPF and social protection needs on the ground. This could build on support already being provided to them, inter alia through UNICEF for a child grant for example. It would also involve, at a minimum, enhancing the understanding of MGCSW staff on social protection issues, including the ability to think through the socioeconomic and political implications of various social protection interventions; improving program design, implementation, and management skills; strengthening work planning, budgeting and M&E capacities; and increasing familiarity with fiduciary and safeguards issues and mitigation measures. 4. Supporting more effective coordination and sustainability: Given the numerous actors involved in the social protection sector, explicit coordination structures for social protection need to be formalized at both the national and local levels, as is currently being tried under the PfRR on a pilot basis for some geographic areas at the local level. Where possible and appropriate, relevant Government institutions should lead this process, even in the short term, to prepare them for a Government-led coordination process in the future. Otherwise, relevant Government institutions should at least be consulted and updated on coordination efforts, and be included at appropriate, in the coordination and decision-making structures. Common modalities among partners and the MGCSW should be put in place to facilitate accurate reporting and assessment of the impacts of social protection interventions. The emerging coordination and knowledge sharing among the National Social Protection Working Group, led by the MGCSW, and the donor-led Inter-agency Cash Working Group, is a good example of such coordination and collaboration. In the long run, development partners may also want to consider more co-financing of multi-donor trust fund arrangements, managed by one donor, to improve coordination. However, given past experiences on MDTFs in South Sudan, any such funding arrangements would need to have very clear governing and management structures at all levels, together with relevant operations manuals for each level of implementation within its given mandate and competency. High level governance structure should also be established to guide on broad strategic and oversight issues. x 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background and Context As a new nation, South Sudan has had the dual challenge of dealing with the legacy of over 50 years of conflict and continued instability, as well as huge development deficits and wide-ranging vulnerabilities. The country has some of the lowest human development indicators in the world, and minimal levels of infrastructure development. Formal institutions are being built from a very low base and the capacity of Government to formulate policy and implement programs is limited, though growing. The nearly four-years of conflict in South Sudan has significantly eroded the country’s development potentials, worsened humanitarian situations, and deepened vulnerabilities. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, over 4 million people, or about two fifths of the population, have been displaced (1.9 million internally and about 2.4 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries), and over 7.1 million (over half the population) face severe food insecurity. Annual inflation has reached alarming triple digits levels (650 percent in September 2017) and the exchange rate continues to rapidly devalue. Consequently, the incidence of poverty has worsened to nearly 65 percent in 2016, and urban poverty has increased to 76 percent, with corresponding deepening of poverty. Trust among the people, and in the state, has broken down, and the capacity of institutions to adequately respond has deteriorated.6 Social protection is increasingly seen as an important part of the Government’s strategy to fight poverty and promote economic growth. The South Sudan Development Plan (SSDP) 2011-2013 first recognized the importance of developing a coherent social protection system in order ‘to reduce risk, vulnerability, poverty and economic and social exclusions throughout South Sudan.’ Since then, a National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) has been adopted whose overall goal is to ‘respond to and address the multiple vulnerabilities faced by South Sudanese citizens, with a particular focus on the poorest and most excluded sectors.’ However, Government’s capacity to design, implement and coordinate an effective social protection program in South Sudan remains limited. In response, the Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare (MoGCSW), as the lead Ministry with mandate on social protection, has requested the World Bank for support in operationalizing the National Social Protection Policy Framework, which can provide strategic guidance to partners active in the social protection sector and ensure that interventions are implemented in more systematic, coordinated, and sustainable ways to address chronic poverty and vulnerabilities in the country. In response, the South Sudan: Operationalization of the National Social Protection Policy Framework RSR (P158867), financed under the Rapid Social Response – Multi Donor Trust Fund, was approved “to provide support to the Government of South Sudan to operationalize the National Social Protection Policy Framework.� It aims to provide the Government with analytical and technical assistance over the two-year period of 2016- 2018, and focuses on: (i) Sector wide Assessment of Social Protection Programs; and (ii) Technical Assistance to Operationalize the National Social Protection Policy Framework and Knowledge Transfer. 6World Bank. 2017. “South Sudan Economic Update,� Washington, D.C. 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study Following the recent outbreak of violence in July 2016, international assistance has largely shifted focus to primarily the humanitarian sector. Consequently, certain key social protection projects have been closed, while others have been refocused. It is therefore important to have a clear understanding of the main actors in the sector, the types of programs being implemented and planned, the areas of operation, target beneficiaries, the types of instruments used, and the funding volume. The objective of the assignment is to take stock of the key social protection projects that are being currently implemented, or are planned for implementation in the near future (6-12 months), including the above required information. It provides the current status of the sector and also adopts a forwarding looking approach, which considers the role of social protection in an on going fragile and conflict context. It was hoped that the stocktaking will not only contribute to more informed and effective design and implementation of social protection activities, but will also serve as a guidance for partners and Government on where to best target interventions, mobilize funds and what social protection models are relevant for strengthening resilience and addressing vulnerabilities. At the end, recommendations are sought to further help facilitate greater coordination among partners and the Government, particularly for agreed monitoring and data sources, which can promote robust, reliable, and accurate interventions. 1.3 Scope and Methodology This stocktaking is a qualitative evidence-based study, which relied heavily on feedback from key institutions and individuals who have been involved in the design, operationalization, implementation and supervision of social protection activities in South Sudan. It involved review of available documents (Annex 5), as well as stakeholder consultations and in-depth interviews, which took place from December 2017 to June 2018 (Annex 11). The consultations and interviews constituted of relevant officials of Government institutions and development agencies that support social protection programs. This allowed for a high degree of cross-referencing and was suitable for finding common insights, which were both sensitive and informative. The stocktaking not only compiled a matrix of all the related actors and activities (Annex 2)7, but also aimed to determine if social protection systems (technical, financial, management, legal) have been well established in the country, and if yes, whether these together can effectively design and deliver social protection interventions. 7 List of Stakeholders and Partners 2 1.4 Organizations and Structure of the Report Structure This report has five sections: (I) Introduction; (ii) Development Context; (iii) Social Protection Findings; (iv) Sustainability; and (v) Conclusions and Recommendations. Chapters are structured to begin with introductory notes, and move to the social protection context in the country, and then delve into selected relevant projects and programmes. Some pertinent issues, such as monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and gender, are mainstreamed throughout all the sections. This report represents the final output and deliverable of this social protection stocktaking exercise, as detailed below. • Chapter 1 introduces the stocktaking, including its purpose scope and objectives, as well as methodology and limitations. • Chapter 2 provides a description of the country context of South Sudan. • Chapter 3 contains finding including the Results and M&E framework. • Chapter 4 presents sustainability. This chapter is structured around the criteria of financial risks; political risks; coordination and governance risks, environmental safety risks, and gaps in M&E. • Chapter 5 presents the stocktaking conclusions and recommendations. The report also contains 5 Annexes as detailed below. ▪ Annex 1 – Documents reviewed. ▪ Annex 2 – List of Individuals interviewed. ▪ Annex 3 – List of social protection activities- Matrix. ▪ Annex 4 – Evaluation Terms of Reference. ▪ Annex 5 –Itinerary of the Stocktaking 1.5 Constraints and Limitations One of the major challenges to the stocktaking exercise was the on-going insecurity, which greatly impeded movement. This meant that project sites around the country could not be visited for gaining first- hand views and opinions from the beneficiaries of social protection interventions. Field data that was collected came from NGOs implementing social protection activities on behalf of development partners across the country. As such, it was difficult to verify all the information received. Instead, telephone interviews with the Implementing Partner’s (IP) sub-contractors and others were arranged to compensate for the lack of field visits, with limited results. Another challenge with the stocktaking exercise was the lack of consistent national and local level socio-economic data necessary to assess social protection impact. Moreover, existing data collection and analysis processes changed from before July 2016 and after July 2016, limiting the viability of conducting trend analysis. In addition to the traditional social protection interventions, a great deal of support continues to be provided through the humanitarian sector, which greatly complements the work of social protection activities. However, this study did not focus on the humanitarian sector as it is beyond the scope of the study. Lastly, the consultations held included few female participants, which could potentially bias the findings in the stocktaking exercise, particularly in terms of views regarding poverty and its impact on women, exclusion due to HIV/AIDS status, gender, ethnicity or disability etc. 3 2.0 CONTEXT 2.1 Social Protection Context South Sudan has suffered major setbacks due to decades of violence and insecurity, limiting its capacity to consolidate and formulate strategic development pathways. Unfortunately, the Government of Republic of South Sudan (GRSS) has limited capacity to design and implement interventions. Broader civil society (excluding NGOs), private sector and community at large are similarly constrained. Social Protection referred to set of private and public mechanisms that ensure individuals’ and households’ access to essential goods and services to protect them from adverse effects of shocks and stresses, while building their resilience and capacity to effectively manage any future hazardous occurrences. 8 With a growing interest among policymakers as an effective tool against poverty and vulnerability, there is an increasing demand on how key social protection programs can promote employment, particularly among young people, and build social cohesion in post-conflict settings. For example, a growing body of evidence from African countries shows that social protection directly reduces chronic poverty and vulnerability, as these programs enable poor households to meet their basic consumption needs, protect their assets, and achieve better health, nutrition, and education outcomes.9 In South Sudan, humanitarian aid financed by donors and delivered by international aid agencies and NGOs has been the primary mechanism for providing basic services, including social protection services, to the poor people of South Sudan. Albeit critical for saving lives, humanitarian aid simply has not been able to adequately cover all the needs given the sheer scale of the problems and enormous needs in the country. In addition to the limited coverage of the needy, there is also a concern that such interventions undermine the national and local institutions and capacities, create dependency syndromes among the local communities, and therefore can be detrimental in the long run to the state building process and the social and political contract between a state and its citizens. 2.2 Why Social Protection The conflict induced shocks and stresses are posing significant obstacles to longer-term development, and are disproportionately impacting on vulnerable groups such as women and children. For example, nearly one in every three pregnant and lactating women in the country is malnourished. In 2017, more than 70 percent of refugees are children, while nationwide over 276,343 children are likely to be affected by severe acute malnutrition (SAM). Currently, vulnerabilities are highly exaggerated due to on-going economic and political crises, which has strained people and institutions’ capacity further to cope. Before the conflict in July 2016, significant progress was made in improving most social indicators during that period. Primary education enrollment rose, and gender parity in education was close to being achieved. HIV prevalence declined, and evidence indicates that child mortality was beginning to fall sharply. Access to clean water was a reality for 60 percent of households in urban centers, up from only 50 percent at the post independence period. Social protection still remains at the forefront of social policy 8South Sudan National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) 9As highlighted in the 2014 World Bank report on youth employment in Sub-Saharan Africa, only a quarter of the young people who enter the labour market each year over the next decade will find a salaried position, and only a small fraction of them will secure formal employment in “modern� enterprises, with the majority of young people remaining in the informal sector 4 in South Sudan for the decades to come and will evolve in response to the country’s changing circumstances. It recognizes the integral relationship between social inclusion, investment, employment, and poverty, linking it to the needs and opportunities inherent for South Sudan to realize universal social protection systems as captured in SDG 1.3.Thus, social protection is considered as a critical element of national development strategies to reduce poverty, and vulnerabilities, support inclusive and sustainable growth by raising household incomes, and foster productivity and human development. Given the current situation in South Sudan, the Government and development partners have emphasized the importance of addressing vulnerabilities and strengthening resilience of the most poor and vulnerable through social protection interventions. 2.3 Policies, Programmes, and Strategies The primary development priorities of the Government of Republic of South Sudan were recently articulated in the South Sudan Development Plan (SSDP 2012-2016). Although the SSDP has not been updated, continued priorities of the Government have been further captured in official documents by the United Nations and the International Financial Institutions through on-going consultations, and include the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF 2012-2016), Interim Cooperation Framework(ICF2016-2017), and the World Bank’s Country Engagement Note (CEN FY18-19) and South Sudan Development Strategy. These documents broadly spelt out various measures for progressively diversifying the economy, reducing poverty, and increasing shared prosperity through improved provision of service delivery, increased the livelihood opportunities and economic growth, among others. To that end, the Government is committed requested the international community to target its support towards four key objectives: Governance: build a democratic, transparent, and accountable Government, managed by a professional and committed public service, with an effective balance of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Economic development: facilitate diversified private sector-led economic growth and sustainable development, which improves livelihoods and reduces poverty. Social and human development: promote the well-being and dignity of all the people of South Sudan by progressively accelerating universal access to basic social services, in particular health and education. Conflict prevention and security: prevent the resurgence of conflict and uphold the constitution by providing equitable access to justice and maintaining law and order through institutions, which are transparent, accountable and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Key Social Protection priorities included in the SSDP (2012-2016) Priorities Indicator Baseline Target Eligible families accessing social protection support 0 20% (2016) Operational plan for social protection strategy developed 5 Social protection in place Operational plan in place (2013) (2016) Common targeting system established Common system not Common system developed developed and in place (2016) Central repository system with data on individual in place, and household ranked on agreed vulnerabilities index established Repository not in place Repository in place (2016) This report considers some fundamental types of social protection programs that include the conditional cash transfers, unconditional cash transfers, and school feeding programs, unconditional in-kind transfers and public works. The assistance offered were done on the basis of eligible families accessing social protection support, operational plans and programs for social protection developed, the agreed common targeting system established including the central repository system with data on individual in place, and household ranked on agreed vulnerabilities index established. 2.4 Political and Civil Context South Sudan is a fractured country characterized by deep ethnic division, a breakdown of social cohesion, and a lack of trust between the citizens and the Government. The situation has deteriorated significantly since independence with ongoing tension and conflict across large parts of the country, with direct military confrontations taking place between the South Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the SPLM – In Opposition (SPLM-IO). Disputes with Sudan have also resulted in cross-border tensions. Large-scale displacement, a major humanitarian crisis, and deepening famine in parts of the country have further debilitated the country’s ability to ensure service delivery and implement priorities that reduce vulnerabilities and enhance coping capacities. There are urgent humanitarian needs across South Sudan because of multiple and intersecting threats, including armed conflict and inter-communal violence, economic decline, disease and climatic shocks. As of November 2016, the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) estimated that the six Protection of Civilians (PoC) sites in the country were sheltering more than 200,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs). Currently, there are at least 1.6 million refugees in South Sudan, the impact of which is being felt across the region. 2.5 Key Partners & Stakeholders The key stakeholder to note in social protection is the Government of Republic of South Sudan. This primarily includes the Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare (MGCSW) who has the mandate and is providing the leadership on social protection systems. It is also providing other related ministries, including the Ministry of Labor, Public Services and Human Resource Development and Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, with guidance on social protection. Full list of Government partners is in the annex (See annex 3) In addition to the GRSS, development partners, UN agencies and NGOs are also committed to supporting social protection and strengthening resilience in the country, utilizing a Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) and Conflict Sensitivity Approach to programming at the county and community levels, with a 6 special focus on the rights of women, children and the most vulnerable in South Sudan. 10 Key development partners include: Canada, DfID, European Union, Germany, FAO, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, UNDP, UNICEF, USAID, World Bank, and World Food Programme, among others. Key NGO partners include: Action Africa Help-International, CARE International, Lutheran World Federation, Oxfam, and World Vision etc. As previously mentioned, much of the funding provided in related social protection activities continues to be dominated by the humanitarian sector, particularly in the most conflict-affected and difficult to access locations given the acute need. As a result, much of the support provided continue to be outside the Government system, which limits the Government’s capacity to have a clear sense of the full volume of support being provided in the social protection sector, and therefore, their ability to effectively identify gaps, determine priorities, and coordinate efforts. Below is a table summarizing the different types of support being provided by the various partners. Table 1: List of asymmetric priorities of social protection Partner(s) Role(s) Government Partners Facilitates increased access to locations and population through government structures and systems in place, coordinates efforts, and at times, implements programs that supports the poor and marginalized to build resilience and improve livelihood and welfare. UN Agencies and other partners Provides technical and financial support for social protection interventions and system building. Also supported policy dialogue implements social protection programs. At times, directly implements programs. Bilateral and Multi-lateral Donors Provides technical and financial support for social protection interventions and system building, which are usually implemented through NGO or UN partners. Also supports policy dialogue. NGOs Implements social protection programs. Also has a key role in serving as a liaison between the people and local authorities and in building local management systems for transparency and social accountability. UNMISS Provided support for Return, Reintegration and Protection (RRP) to enabling county level development through County Support Bases (CSBs) 3.0 SOCIAL PROTECTION FINDINGS 3.1 National Social Protection Policy Framework The National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) was approved by the Transitional National Assembly in 2015 and launched in May 2016. The Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare 10 UNDAF 2012-2016, Social and Human Development pillar 7 developed the Framework, with technical and financial support from the World Bank and UNICEF. The ultimate goal of the NSPPF is to enhance the capacity of the South Sudanese people to manage socio- economic risk and volatility by increasing their resilience to shocks; help the poor and vulnerable avoid destitution by ensuring more equitable resource distribution; and improve access to opportunities generated by economic growth.11 It identifies the priority areas in social protection in South Sudan and serves as the overall guidance for all stakeholders on activities in the social protection sector. The Framework also mandates an annual allocation of 1 percent of the national budget to implement the priorities identified under the Policy Framework. The Government, development partners, and beneficiaries highlighted in consultations that the social protection policy framework has some very important features, which are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. These aim to protect lives, prevent destitution, promote welfare and transform lives. Other critical design factors necessary for effective implementation and coordination are also highlighted in the framework, and includes good governance, economic security, social equity, environmental sustainability and active citizen engagement. In addition, the NSPPF prioritizes supporting the country’s social protection systems by establishing necessary legal reforms, policies and processes to establish an enabling regulatory environment and delivery arrangements.12 It also advocates for raising awareness and enhanced learning in the social protection sector through increased research and monitoring. The targeted groups are women, youth, and children, people with disability and elderly. Therefore, the National Social Protection Policy Framework has the potential to be an effective framework for poverty alleviation, equity promotion, resilience building and inclusive growth in South Sudan. It formsthe baseline for social protection intervention by the Government and development partners. Discussions with partners revealed that while they have implemented social protection programs premised on the country’s changing contexts and have contributed to social protection directly, indirectly and in interactive ways, these have not always been guided by the NSPPF. For example, programs focused on food security, nutrition, livelihoods, resilience building and gradual expansion of capacity strengthening for most vulnerable people to durably escape from poverty was based on current humanitarian needs and considerations, rather than explicitly aligned with the priorities of the Policy Framework. Following the outbreak of conflict in December 2013, and again in July 2016, much of the efforts by partners have shifted from development to humanitarian aid. Existing efforts to strengthen resilience and improve food security through social protection type interventions have focused on activities such as conditional and unconditional cash transfers (i.e. public works, cash-for-works), food for assets, micro- finance, market support commodity vouchers, nutrition services for malnourished children, livelihoods opportunities and income generating activities, skills training, and improved agricultural inputs such as quality seeds and tools, among others. Nonetheless, direct food aid distribution seems to continue to constitute a major aspect of safety nets interventions under the humanitarian umbrella in the country,13 particularly in the most conflict-affected and difficult to access areas. 11 National Social Protection Policy Framework 12 End Child Marriage Strategic Plan 2018-2022 13 South Sudan is markedly more dependent on relief food today – the grain imports of the 1950s are about as much as the 8 3.2 Social protection Modalities and Approaches Social protection has various modalities such asocial assistance, livelihood promotion, and legal reforms, among others. With alarming scale of widespread poverty in the country, the government and development partners have largely focused on social assistance in their attempts to address increased vulnerabilities.15 Below are a few selected examples of social protection programs in South Sudan. Safety nets to the poor and most vulnerable - The most significant components of this type of intervention include food aid and cash grants that target poor and vulnerable households (i.e. the Child Support Grant, Foster Child Grant, and Care Dependency Grant, Disability Grant, Older Person’s G rant, War Veterans’ Grant, and Grant-in-Aid etc.) all aimed to contributes to promote healthy, productive, cohesive and peaceful society.16 Traditionally, in-kind food aid grants under humanitarian assistance were the primary type of safety nets assistance, and continues to dominate in the most conflict affected and difficult to access locations. Recently however, cash transfers through public works and other mechanisms are expanding rapidly, and aims to support poor people in crisis buy food and pay for basic services. In 2004, cash-based programs accounted for less than one percent of the total value of humanitarian spending; in 2016, they accounted for about six percent.17 For example, NGOs such as the World Vision, Oxfam, Danish Church Aid, and AAH-I, among others, funded by development partners and the Government, are providing cash transfers through their social protection activities, whereby households are provided with some assistance in form of cash and/or value vouchers. Initial results of social grants are showing that for some beneficiaries, the cash is not only consumed; it is also invested in a range of livelihood activities such as petty trading activity, allowing recipients to multiply the value of social assistance given and generate incomes as well as raising their consumption levels directly18. In Juba city’s Public Works program, implemented by AAHI, that Government’s Safety Net and Skills Development Project has provided temporary employments and basic incomes to poor households in Juba.19 Most of the households which benefited from social grants have recorded higher rates of labour market participation, more success in finding employments, and more rapid increases in wage income, than comparably with poor households who are not grant recipients or benefitting from the project. Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs, such as Emergency Food Aid implemented by World Vision and funded by the WFP in Juba City, have helped increase the levels of expenditure on schooling, average weekly WFP distribution in 2017, and the total relief distribution in 1973 is a little more than the average monthly WFP distribution that year 15UNICEF (2016). South Sudan Humanitarian Situation Report 7 April 2016 16 South Sudan is markedly more dependent on relief food than it was forty years ago, it is even less more dependent on food commodities sold in markets, Interview with NGO staff in Juba. 17 Different estimates for government expenditure and for GDP are available from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weoselser.aspx?c=733&t=1 , accessed on 12 Mar 2018; ‘Release of South Sudan Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Estimates for 2016,’ Juba: National Bureau of Statistics press release (13 Sep 2017); ‘Approved Budget Tables Fiscal Year 2017/18,’ Juba: Ministry of Finance and Planning (Sep 2017) 18There are reports that indicate that money spent on social service provi sion could be lower since it’s possible that some money allocated is never released. Even though the budget for social service provision is low, the biggest percentage of the money released never attends to the social service needs of the people as it is used to pay salaries for government workers (UNICEF, 2015). 19Safety Net and Skills Development Project (SNSDP) 1) Social Protection Systems Building; 2) Public Works with 6,000 as current and 41,000 as end target 9 clothing, and footwear for children. The program also contributed to a significant reduction in the proportion of children who suffered from some illness. Similarly, the Child Grant Program helped retain children 13–17 years of age in primary school such as Girls Education South Sudan (GESS), and School Feeding Programme particularly helped girls who would have otherwise dropped out.20 It is important to note however that while cash transfer programs have benefits; they also run the risk of distorting local markets and exposing South Sudan households more directly to food price volatility. As such, organizations providing cash transfers generally conduct routine market analysis to monitor the relationship between the cash transferred and market dynamics and ensure that cash transfer activities do not negatively impact on local market behaviors. Promotion of Poor and Vulnerable Households through Productive Inclusion Interventions – Stakeholder interviews revealed that interventions through safety nets activities can also contain productive inclusion as a design feature which supports the promotion of livelihoods, albeit still very limited in scope. Productive support ranges from public works and food-for-work/cash for asset programs to agricultural inputs subsidies for selected crops, among others. Other complementary activities include business promotion and outreach programs supporting community associations, including people with disabilities (PWDs), women and youth groups. As such, public works programs can not only help individuals and households avert deprivation by using cash for basic incomes and food, but can also utilize the cash to engage in income generating activities. However, to do so, the cash transfer needs to be sufficient in terms of not only supporting food security, but also promoting livelihoods options. Moreover, such interventions can also help to enhance community assets, which can further increase access to livelihoods means (i.e. roads rehabilitation or water pans that can increase access to markets or improve agricultural opportunities, respectively)21. Public Works interventions by organizations such as WFP and FAO, as well as the Government supported by the World Bank, focuses on addressing the most vulnerable people’s immediate food needs, while improving communities’ long-term community infrastructures priorities, such as roads. These assets not only support the beneficiaries directly, but also the wider community. Moreover, interviews conducted cited the provision of vocational training, support of ex-combatants with skills, provision of agricultural tools and seed capital, diversification of livelihoods are some additional measures which are currently being provided that have the high potential to reduce violence and benefit conflicts affected communities. They can also go a long way towards increase interdependencies among communities and promoting trust, hope and peaceful co-existence.22 20 World Vision Impacts- 355,558 people assisted; $ 14.5 M distributed and targeted states were Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Western Equatoria 21Yunusu E, Sibanda G, & Markham M, Senior (2016), Cash-based programming to address hunger in conflict-affected South Sudan: A case study. World Vision South Sudan 22 UNDP commissioned an End line Study (2017) on peace, security and sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) to assess the overall contribution of CSAC Project towards improving community security and reducing the levels of local and communal conflicts. Some areas in Warrap, Jonglei and Unity where implementation of peace and security projects progressed smoothly, inter-communal violence reduced. 10 Social Transformations and Legal Reforms –Legal reforms and policies can ensure constitutional rights that safeguard the welfare and development of vulnerable groups. The National Social Protection Policy Framework provides good guidance on how social protection should look like in South Sudan. However, without accompanying laws, policies, and procedures, application of the principles of the NSPPF remain a dream. This is particularly noteworthy in terms of the allocation of the 1 per cent of the annual national budget to social protection activities in the country, as mandated by the NSPPF but not yet realized. Other examples of legal gaps include limited access to justice for girls being forced into marriages or being subjected to other forms of sexual violence, labour protection, protection against abuse of children etc. Parental neglect was singled out during consultations and the MGCSW has developed laws that protect children through the Child Act 2008, Justice for Children Act, and “Children Without Appropriate Parental Policy,� as response to growing incidence of children living and working on the street who needs protection. However, weak enforcement capacities have resulted in lack of protection or non-compliance of these laws and policies. Nonetheless, there were efforts on ground to enhance citizen engagement in their own social transformations and demand for legal reform and implementation of interventions aimed at rebuilding a fractured society and contributing to a shared prosperity. 3.3 Implementation Arrangements Achieving social protection objectives of resilience strengthening and poverty reduction requires multidimensional interventions from multiple sectors, policies, and actors using multiple implementation arrangements. In South Sudan, majority of social protection interventions have been found to be implemented by NGOs and community based organizations, funded by development partners and outside the national government system. These organizations are not only engaging in implementation efforts, but are also undertaking regular monitoring to support evidence based programming. Consultations also found that attention is being given to ensuring complementarities between the different implementation mechanisms of social protection. While this is a step in the right direction, limited administrative capacity, as well as human and financial resources, of government agencies at both national and local levels responsible for advancing social protection and safety nets programme, coupled with lack of systems and infrastructure necessary for effective design and implementation, highly constrain the government’s ability to effectively engage in the efforts by the NGO and development partners in the social protection sector. This has resulted in a lack of government ownership of these programs, thereby risking the success and sustainability of these efforts. The consultation also found gaps in terms national coverage to ensure regional representation due to lack of access. Given that social protection programmes are being implemented in fragmented operational environment; with limited physical infrastructure and weakened management capacities that have been deteriorated due to the ongoing conflicts in the country, interventions generally focuses mostly on the accessible locations. The consultations also found gaps in adequate risk monitoring of social protection interventions to effectively respond to changing context, especially with regards to local conflict and 11 situations, due to lack of field presence by development partners and robust third party monitoring. UN agencies, and in particular the WFP, are demonstrating comparative advantages in these areas, not only in terms of logistics capacity to scale up nationally, but also in their capacity to negotiate safe access; and strong field presence through sub-offices and mobile teams. 3.4 Coordination and Collaboration Arrangements The current social protection sector is characterized by a plethora of organizations implementing multiple programmes with differing mandate, objective, targeting criteria, operational arrangements and funding mechanisms, makings coordination and collaboration and ‘delivering as one’ a challenge. This runs the risk of confusion and contradiction on the group, as well as overlap and duplication of efforts, thereby minimizing efficiency and squandering opportunities that come from synergies and leveraged resources. The on-going efforts by partners to coordinate support along geographic areas under the Partnership for Recover and Resilience platform is expected to alleviate coordination issues to some extent. During consultations, many of the social protection stakeholders accepted the principle that Government should be in the coordination lead. However, the preponderance of humanitarian interventions, coupled with the at times tense Government-donor relationship, makes such collaboration difficult. The consultations found that often, government institutions have been excluded from the formal decision- making and coordination processes of development partner funded social protection interventions. At the same time, frequent changes and reshuffling in the government, as well as on-going key vacant positions, particularly after the July 2016 conflict, complicates efforts by development partners to effective coordinate and collaborate with the Government. The MGCSW had established some coordination structures for the social protection sector, but it has unfortunately been dormant since the latest outbreak of conflict, partly due to inadequate capacity and space within the MGCSW to bring all the myriad stakeholders within development partners and the Ministries together. 3.5 Financing and Budgetary Allocation Arrangements It is often argued that social protection is not affordable or that government expenditure cuts are inevitable during economic contractions. But there are alternatives, even in the poorest countries. This section highlights challenges and approaches to financing social protection. The Government of the Republic of South Sudan has committed 1 percent of its annual budget or national revenue to integrated social protection interventions.23That resource mobilization mechanism has a non- contributory character; that is, beneficiaries do not have to pay or contribute financially in order to receive some benefits, as the private sector is still at infancy and small by any standards, unable to pool resources through pensions and insurances. Social service provision in South Sudan is a challenging task given the lack of national resources and budget deficits. With a hike in military expenditure, the government is spending much less on social services. Health, education, and social and humanitarian expenditure make up 3.1, 6.6 and 0.9 percent of 23 National Social Protection Policy 12 the total 2015–2016 budget respectively, compared to 44.7 per cent for security and 14.6 per cent for rule of law. Currently, government spending on social protection 24 in the country is negligible and inadequate compared to the need. The small amount that is provided mostly is used to pay salaries for government workers (UNICEF, 2015). According to some reports from donors, oil production fell by around 50 percent due to the conflict, and is expected to remain low in years to come. With 98 percent of national revenue dependent upon oil, the Government has therefore been forced to draw down its reserves. In addition, widespread fiscal mismanagement has further reduced spending on social sectors, including the social protection, and weakened both internal and external confidence and support. The economy continues to face shocks, most alarming of which in people’s daily lives been the rapid increase in the price of essential goods. It is expected that the impacts will continue to be widespread, and will reduce the value of the assistance provided through social protection interventions. As such, without significant increased funding to the sector, which can expand assistance both vertically and horizontally and for greater duration, it is expected that social protection assistance may not be adequate to close the poverty gaps and ensure efficiency and effectiveness in reducing poverty and building shared prosperity. 4.0 RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY 4.1 Financial and Economic Risks to Sustainability Social protection requires not only strong political commitment, but also commitment to adequate financing in order to be sustainable, owned and driven by Government, with support from multiple stakeholders engaged in rigorous lobby and advocacy, including development partners, NGOs, civil society, academia and the citizens. Functioning markets 25 also play a key role in ensuring that social protection interventions, particularly cash transfers, are adequate, effective, and sustainable in strengthening resilience and addressing vulnerabilities. South Sudan is in dire financial straits, characterized by rising inflation, rapidly devaluing exchange rate, and volatile market conditions. National funds are meagre, and there is an outstanding arrears of unpaid bills by the Government. Allocation of available funds prioritizes civil servant salaries, particularly of the security forces, to ensure stability and continued functioning of the state apparatus. While understandable from a short-term stability perspective, such an approach nonetheless undermines effective delivery of social services by side-lining social sectors in the budgeting process, thereby harming longer-term development objectives. Key partners in social protection highlight that Government employees not paid for several months at a time, greatly hindering Government’s capacity to recruit and retain qualified staff. Moreover, adequate funds are not available for effective program delivery (i.e. cash transfer benefits), monitoring (i.e. field visits), advocacy (social protection policy outreach) and capacity 24Realizinguniversal social protection systems, “USP2030� address these needs and generate global momentum for countries to achieve SDG 1.3 (“implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage for the poor and the vulnerable�)? 25The main determinant of inflation in South Sudan is the increasing supply of the SSP. In the first two quarters of 2015-2016 the monetary based increased by 80 percent. The increase in the supply of the SSP has been driven primarily by the GRSS borrowing from BOSS. In the first half of 2015-2016, BOSS credit to the government had increased by SSP 3.3bn 13 building (social protection awareness raising), greatly impeding capacity to also effectively design and implement social protection programs. The current deteriorating economic situation and market conditions also greatly limit the longer-term benefits that can be achieved through social protection interventions, particularly in terms of poverty alleviation. Social protection can be a powerful tool for poverty alleviation under more stable economies characterized by recovery, as well as security, which allows for productive asset creation and savings. However, under the worsening conditions of protracted humanitarian situation and failing markets, the net value of social protection interventions, particularly cash transfers, is becoming negligible. Even when transfers are being used to create productive assets, the current market environment makes sustaining such assets very difficult. The necessary duration of social protection interventions to adequately strengthen resilience against shocks and stresses is also becoming unsustainable. Given the challenges in maintaining the value of social protection and safety net support, which can adequately translate to sustainable productive assets, implementers are being faced with an impossible trade off given budget constraints –either continue support for a small group of people for a lengthy time to strengthen resilience and capacities, or reduce the length (and perhaps value) of the support and expand coverage to a large number of the needy. Both options have important political and social consequences around equity, balance, and stability, particularly in the current context of conflict, insecurity, high tensions and distrust among and between various communities as well as between the citizen and the state. Given the nascent nature of the social protection sector in South Sudan, it has not yet developed a financing mechanism to address financial sustainability, for example setting up social funds, leveraging development funds (i.e. IDA loan from the World Bank) as ‘seed money’ to attract more funding, public - private partnership, leveraging funds from extractive industries (i.e. oil and mining sectors) etc. Continued peace and stability would also play a critical role is mobilizing funds, particularly from the donor community. For example, the MGCSW reports that key development partners in the social protection sector are ready to give in adequate funding for MGCSW to implement system building programmes; however only under the condition that peace prevail in the country to ensure effective delivery and utilization of support while also minimizing fiduciary risks. 4.2 Institutional & Governance Risks to Sustainability Given the breadth of the needs in South Sudan and the multitude of actors present, strong coordination mechanisms, which effectively brings on board all key stakeholders and ensure coherence and synergy in effort, is key to sustainability of social protection interventions. However, as previously mentioned, such a mechanism does not fully exist at the moment, although efforts are growing, particularly among development partners and in the humanitarian sector. For example, currently there is the Inter-agency Cash Working Group under the Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster, which aims to establish coherent and consistent principles and frameworks for cash transfer, both in the humanitarian and development sector, in the country. However, this only deals with cash transfer, which is a small part of a broader social protection sector. Nor does it include the government given the politically sensitive issues discussed at times given the presence of humanitarian colleagues. Similarly, an Agriculture and 14 Livelihoods Working Group also exists to coordinate donor activities in the agriculture and food security sector; however again, this touches upon some aspects of social protection, namely livelihoods, but not all. Also, it too does not widely include the donors. Prior to the 2013 conflict, there was a Social Protection Technical Working Group, led by the MGCSW, as mentioned previously in Section 3, but this needs to be stregnthened. An attempt was made briefly prior to July 2016 conflict to establish a Partners Social Protection Working Group, but this faltered due to the outbreak, and has not yet been resumed. Currently, the PfRR platform is attempting to coordinate efforts among a wide range of partners for delivery of more integrated package of services, but this is not nationwide. Fragmentation of efforts not only creates confusion and inefficiencies, but also risks the sustainability of interventions, as they cannot be done at scale, thereby limiting the impact of the assistance provided. An attempt was made to assess the sustainability and scale of impact of the efforts by CSOs in the social protection sector, but this was difficult due to security limitations on the stocktaking. Nonetheless, initial stocktaking and consultations showed that whilst the local schemes developed by the project have shown some promise, these need to be implemented at scale to have real impact. As such, there was a general sentiment that development partners could support to scale up existing programs under NGOs/CSOs that are performing well, with active engagement by Government, to reinforce the capacities of these agencies, strengthen collaboration and coordination and minimize inefficiencies while maximizing synergies. 4.3 Social and Environmental Risks to Sustainability It is highly important to ensure that no social protection interventions negatively impact on social or environmental dynamics. A lot of attention is given in South Sudan during the design phase to ensure that social protection activities are conflict-sensitive, such that activities do not exacerbate conflict dynamics in target locations, and where possible, reinforces local level peace building efforts. However, if this is not complemented with robust Grievance Redress Mechanisms that enable participatory citizen engagement in project implementation, social protection interventions run the risk of failing to address grievances and complaints early on, thereby alleviating potential tensions, as well as ensuring that project design continues to be contextually nuanced and locally appropriate. This is particularly critical for the most conflict affected and difficult to access locations where trust among the people and communities, as well as in institutions, are likely to be very low. Similar screening and mitigation measures also need to be put in place for potential environmental impacts. Some social protection projects in the country aim to address climate change impacts through social protection interventions. However, many do not conduct in-depth analysis of environmental impact of activities, particularly those related to community infrastructure rehabilitation. Failure to carefully consider potential negative environmental impact of activities, and thereby take necessary mitigation measures, could potentially cause much bigger development issues in the future in South Sudan, particularly given the country’s propensity to drought. The Government’s Safety Nets and Skills Development Project, funded by the World Bank, has appropriately developed, and implemented a robust community based Grievance Redress Mechanism, as well as screening and mitigation plans for potential negative environmental & social impact of project 15 activities. This could serve as good models for other social protection programs implemented by the Government and development partners. 4.4 Gaps in Monitoring and Evaluation Effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is key to strengthening any project design and implementation by ensuring evidence based programming during design, and corrective measures during implementation. However, ensuring strong M&E is also one of the most difficult aspects of project design and implementation in any context. It is therefore doubly hard in a fragile and conflict-affective context such as South Sudan, particularly in the most conflict affected and difficult to access locations where access is of great challenge. In ensuring a strong M&E framework, the first challenge is in selecting indicators that are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic and Time-bound). In South Sudan, this has been a challenge, particularly in ensuring that indicators are measurable, attributable, and realistic, given the rapidly changing contexts, instability, and insecurity. For example, changing circumstances and instability often means that project design has to be adapted several times in its lifetime, making data collection that can allow for trend analysis over a period of time very difficult. Moreover, data collection in itself can be challenge due to issues of access resulting from insecurity, high cost due to lack of infrastructure, challenges is tracking a mobile population due to high levels of IDPs and refugees etc. Then too, often not enough resources are committed within project budgets given the pressure to transfer as much of the benefits as possible to the needy. Lastly, lack of coordination among projects at times results in inconsistent goals, different time horizons, and use of different data collection systems and tools that are not compatible and cannot be used to compile large data sets for macro-level analysis. Adequate capacity to effectively undertake M&E, particularly impact evaluations remain limited in the social protection sector and the country, especially as the National Bureau of Statistics is only a few years old, albeit capacity is growing. Currently, no units or departments exist in the MGCSW to monitor and evaluate social protection interventions. Even if such a unit did exist, there is no M&E framework and system for the sector that would allow for consistent and routine data collection and follow up. As such, all monitoring and evaluation continues to be done through specific projects and by development partners and NGOs 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions and Summary Despite the myriad challenges facing the social protection sector in South Sudan in terms of sustainability, coordination, financing (public resources and donor aid), monitoring and evaluation, government capacity and ownership, and others, the development partners, and to a limited extent, the GRSS, have played a key role in ensuring that safety net benefits reach the most poor and vulnerable, to the extent possible within a very difficult operating environment, characterized by high levels of insecurity, instability, economic volatility and socio-political uncertainties. Although nascent and fragile, the gains made through social protection interventions aimed at strengthening resilience and welfare has been invaluable in not only improving the lives of the people, but have also improved community dialogue and cohesion, and provide lessons for future programming and policy dialogue. In this space, the 16 MGCSW has an important role to play as it works strategically at the national and local levels to formulate and advance social protection policy. However, it requires further support from partners to strengthen its administrative and financial capacity to enable it to successfully undertake its role and responsibilities, including ensuring alignment of social protection programs to the NSPPF. 5.2 Recommendation: Consideration for policy level Based on the findings of the stocktaking exercise, five initial recommendations are included below, which address strategic and operational issues related to social protection policy and programming, including the formulation, design and focus of policy development, and implementation, management and coordination of program delivery. It is important to note that most of these recommendations are aimed at the long- term assuming that the country context would stabilize and therefore, would provide an enabling environment to establish a national social protection system that is owned and driven by the Government. Nonetheless, short and medium term recommendations are also provided to support improved safety net programming within the current context of heightened insecurity, risks, vulnerabilities, and fragility. 1. Sharing of information and lessons for informed and evidence-based programming: Well- informed social protection programs require an in-depth understanding of the root and immediate causes of conflict, impacts and the role of social protection interventions. However, undertaking research and analyses of the impacts of on-going social protection programs in order to have a better sense of the various social protection models that can be both feasible and practical under capcity constrained, resource poor and fragile contexts such as South Sudan, and also support local level stabilization and peacebuilding efforts, can be a tall order. Nonetheless, some minimum information on what works in social protection interventions is key to ensuring informed program design and policy development. The work of the Conflict Sensitive Resource Facility in South Sudan would be well placed to lead on such analysis, in collaboration and close consultation with relevant partners. In the longer term, strong analysis and knowledge sharing will depend largely on data emerging from strong monitoring and evaluation. As such, M&E needs in social protection interventions needs to be anticipated, well-designed, staffed and resourced at all level of implementation. For new projects coming on board, some light touch, rapid baseline data collection on primary household information could be undertaken, to the extent possible, using locally based appropriate indicators for results-based outcomes monitoring. Monitoring frameworks that are forward looking and flexible to monitor changing and often volatile political and security context could be considered, with focus on strengthening delivery tools and capacity for effective implementation. The GRSS, development partners, and NGOs therefore would need to agree on a minimum evaluation standard and consider defining a set of common indicators and reporting frameworks that are easy to implement, collect, track and could support on cross program analysis and learning. On-going efforts by partners to align safety net related resilience work along geographic areas through the Partnership for Recover and Resilience (PfRR) platform is expected to support this effort greatly. 2. Supporting more effective design and planning: Given the urgency of needs, coupled with the role on-going fragility and conflict plays in limiting sustainability of efforts, design and planning of social protection interventions should focus on a twin track approach – working to alleviate most critical needs of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society through safety nets while at the same time 17 reinforcing and contributing to local level cohesion and stability through targeted messaging and sensitization efforts. This can be done at low cost by ensuring that accompanying messages and sensitization is undertaken alongside implementation of project activities and distribution of support. Interventions should continue to be flexible to enable it to respond to the changing context, and a minimal level of sustainability of results should be the primary consideration in the planning, consultations, design and fund allocations of any intervention. In the longer term if the country is to stabilize and embark on a path to recovery and peace consolidation, it would be useful to have a better understanding of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society through the establishment of some form of national registry, which would allow programs to easily and objectively identify potential eligible beneficiaries. The foundations of such a system exist under the Government’s SNSDP Management Information System. Efforts are also underway in the humanitarian sector among some UN agencies, namely IOM, UNHCR, UNICEF, and WFP, to develop a comprehensive database of affected population using biometric registration, known as SCOPE. Application of this database in the development sector, particular in terms of access and input by GRSS and integration with the existing Government system, can however be tricky for various reasons. In the immediate term, targeting of beneficiaries pose specific risks vis a vis manipulation and elite capture of project benefits. Marginalization of specific groups (i.e. minority ethnic groups) through biased targeting is also a concern. Additionally, data quality, privacy, and sharing protocols would need to be assured, particularly in light of concerns around targeting of civilian by Government forces. Lastly, the registry can only be widely useful if there is an agreement among partners regarding the targeting approach and the indicators to be collected based on a common definition of vulnerability, which mitigates the above risks described. As such, much work would be needed to prepare the ground for an integrated social registry based on an agreed, neutral and objective targeting methodology and set of common indicators. Moreover, such a database would require strong Government commitment and ownership, and would need to be embedded within national system (i.e. integrated within the existing SNSDP MIS) if it is to be sustainable in the long run. Policy dialogue among partners and with the Government, in particular, MGCSW, would need to take place over a period of time to chart a feasible way forward. To that end, efforts would need to be given to foster domestic political will in order to mobilize the commitment, ownership and support necessary to establish appropriate, sustainable and effective social protection systems and activities. 3. Capacity building for more effective implementation: Building capacity of the stakeholders, in particular the MGCSW, as well as strengthening the delivery tools will be key as laying the groundwork for rapidly scaling up social protection assistance nation-wide once the country situation is more favourable. The MGCSW should be supported to develop staffing and financing plans, as well as relevant programs in line with the priorities of the NSPPF and social protection needs on the ground, including support to widows, orphans, female- and child-headed households, the disabled, psychosocial trauma counselling, and basic livelihoods assistance, among others. This could build on support already being provided to them, inter alia through UNICEF for a child grant for example. This would involve, at a minimum, enhancing the understanding of MGCSW staff on social protection issues through trainings and knowledge exchange tours, including the ability to think through the socioeconomic and political 18 implications of various social protection interventions; improving program design, implementation, and management skills; strengthening work planning, budgeting and M&E capacities; and increasing familiarity with fiduciary and safeguards issues and mitigation measures. 4. Supporting more effective coordination and sustainability: Given the numerous actors involved in the social protection sector, explicit coordination structures for social protection would need to be formalized at both the national and local levels, as is currently being tried under the PfRR on a pilot basis for some geographic areas at the local level. Where possible and appropriate, relevant Government institutions should lead this process, even in the short term, to prepare them for a Government-led coordination process in the future. If not, the relevant Government institutions should at least be consulted and updated on coordination efforts, and included as appropriate, in the coordination and decision-making structures. Efforts to promote knowledge generation and dissemination, including lessons learned from on-going implementation, should continue among partners, but with the MGCSW more closely engaged in the process. Common modalities among partners and the MGCSW should be put in place to facilitate accurate reporting and assessment of the impacts of social protection interventions. The emerging coordination and knowledge sharing among the National Social Protection Working Group, led by the MGCSW, and the donor-led Inter-agency Cash Working Group, is a good example of such coordination and collaboration. In the long run, development partners may also want to consider more co-financing of multi-donor trust fund arrangements, managed by one donor, to improve coordination. However, given past experiences on MDTFs in South Sudan, any such funding arrangements would need to have very clear governing and management structures at all levels, together with relevant operations manuals for each level of implementation within its given mandate and competency. High level governance structure should also be established to guide on broad strategic and oversight issues. 19 Annex 1: List of People Interviewed No. Name Title Institution 1. 1 Esther Ikare Undersecretary MGCSW 2. Regina Ossa Luka Director General of Gender MGCSW 3. Celina Grace Peter Director General of Child MGCSW Welfare 4. Rev. Ben Waigo Director of Policy Planning Ministry of Labor, Public Service and Human Resource Development 5. Luka Akwai Project Manager - SNSDP MAFS 6. Anthony Taban Public Works Specialist - SNSDP MAFS 7. 6 Rose Ozario Social protection focal point - Ministry of Finance and Planning SNSDP 8. 7 Hanna Carisson Development Cooperation SIDA 9. 8 Hills Jeff Director of Economic Growth USAID and Agriculture 10. 9 Grace Lee Aid Coordination DFAT 11. Aexandre Guhr Head of Cooperation GiZ 12. Annie Chapados Livelihood Advisor DFID 13. Dan Pike DFID 14. Nadia Selim Social Protection World Bank 15. Yuki Ikawa Economic Affairs Japanese Embassy 16. Saptono Diriyadi PME UNICEF 17. JulielChiluke M&E UNICEF 18. Pedro Mortara Safety Net WFP 19. Jesse Wood Deputy Head of Programme WFP 20. Herbert Lopez Cash for work WFP 21. GetahunAmogne Cash for wor WFP 22. Darias Sanyatre Project Manager UNOPS 23. Levi Bona M& E Officer UNOPS 24. Winifred Nalyoogo Cash Transfer FAO 25. Ezana Kasa Livelihood FAO 26. HaiTiet Education Project Officer UNESCO 27. Rashid H. Kheir UNDP Humanitarian Fund UNDP 28. Fredrick Mugisha Advisor UNDP 29. Kashif Saleem Protection Officer UNHCR 30. Primo M. Guli Public Works Specialist Action Africa Help – International 31. Miiro Mivule Project Manager Action Africa Help – International 32. Jannat Noor Oxfam 33. Hope Tchaennzana Oxfam 34. Jacobus Koen Director of Program World Vision Development and Quality Assurance 35. Gift Sibanda Programme Manager World Vision 36. CholMajok Care International 37. Chol Tor Ex. Director CCN 38. Julie Halding Cash and Grant Coordinator Dan Church Aid 39. Paul Wan HR Mananager Nile Hope 40. Anek Cavine Coordinator LWF 41. Robert Tongish Director Juba City Council 42. Hilary Dada Planning Juba City Council xi Annex 2: List of Social Protection Programs & Partners Project title Status Budget Type of Main implementer Direct beneficiaries (000 USD) Funding (number) BMZ Germany Improved access to food security and livelihood Completed 1,657 Grant ADRA Deutschland e.v opportunities for 10,000 IDPs and host community households Integration of Nutrition Services into the Primary On-going 740 Grant AMREF Health Care Programme - Sustainable Strengthening of the basic primary health care system, balanced nutrition and poverty reduction. Strengthening of livelihoods to build resilience of Completed 2,484 Grant German Agro Action, conflict affected populations Welthungerhilfe Improved food and nutrition security and On-going 2,760 Grant German Agro Action, strengthened resilience against external shocks of Welthungerhilfe vulnerable rural households in Northern Bahr el Adaption of Agricultural Cultivation Methods to On-going 6,360 Grant GIZ 400 HHs Climate Change and Stabilization of Livelihoods in Western Bar El Ghazal, South Sudan (TDA CLIMATE) Regional Programme for Food Security through On-going 3,120 Grant GIZ 400 HHs Transitional Aid in Sub Sahra Africa Food Security and Development of Agricultural Completed 18,000 Grant GIZ Markets (FSDAM) Programme Supporting and stabilising the livelihoods of On-going 14,616 Grant GIZ 120,000 returnees, internally displaced persons, and the local population in the Equatorias and in the Greater Pibor Administrative Area in South Sudan Food security and agricultural development On-going 18,000 Grant GIZ 72,370 Food security and agricultural development On-going 10,800 Grant GIZ Support of returnees, internally Displaced People On-going 15,816 Grant GIZ (IDPs) and local population in Pibor county and Equatorias Contribution to reducing hunger of poverty by On-going 1,836 Grant HelpAge Deutschland e.V. 6,000 supporting sustainable food productions and alternative income possibilities of vulnerable households xi Supporting the transition from humanitarian crisis On-going 890 Grant HelpAge Deutschland e.V. through recovery to sustainable economic development in Warrap State, South Sudan Integrated program for nutrition security in the On-going 3,271 Grant Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe e.V. counties Intergrated Food and Nutrition Security programme On-going 1,620 Grant Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe e.V. Support to Refugees, IDPs and Host communities Completed 8,820 Grant KFW in South Sudan Improving Food Security by strengthening On-going 1,668 Grant Malteser International 5,100 agricultural and marketing capacities of vulnerable communities in Bussere Payam, Wau County, Western Bahr-El Ghazal Sustainable improvement of nutrition sensitive On-going 1,440 Grant Malteser International 1,000 HHs agricultural productionn and of the livelihoods of the population with special focus on vulnerable groups in Maridi County Integrated food security and nutrition program On-going 551 Grant VSF Germany 3382 HHs, Food and Nutrition Assistance for Relief On-going 18,000 Contribution WFP and Recovery, Supporting Transition and Enhancing Capabilities to Ensure Sustainable Hunger Solutions Food and Nutrition Assistance for Relief and On-going 13,200 Contribution WFP Recovery, Supporting Transition and Enhancing Capabilities to Ensure Sustainable Hunger Solutions in South Sudan Strengthen food security from vulnerable Preparation phase 2,507 Grant World Vision households, especially mothers and children Canada Food for Assets - Phase II - Resilience Building On-going 30,000 Grant WFP 500,000 Upgrading the Fishery Sector in South Sudan On-going 9,472 Grant UNIDO 4,730 Fortifying Equality and Economic Diversity Completed 15,200 Contribution World Vision Canada 216,520 (FEED) Food Securirty for Vulnerable Farming Households Completed 3,294 Contribution War Child Canada 23,730 Building Resilient Agricultural Production (BRAP) Completed 5,307 Contribution Agriteam Canada 28,000 Food Security and Livelihoods Assistance Completed 3,900 Contribution Samaritan's Purse Canada 60,000 xii Strengthening Livelihoods in South Sudan Completed 4,118 Contribution VSF Canada 66,000 Support for Agriculture Food Security and On-going 1,808 Contribution FAO Nutrition Systems in South Sudan (SAFaNIS) Sustainable Food Security through Community- On-going 5,088 Grant FAO 8,000 HH Based Livelihood Development and Water Harvesting in South Sudan - II Sustainable Food Security through Community- On-going 12,664 Grant FAO Based Livelihoods Development and Water Harvesting Project Denmark 10,800 individuals Strengthening the resilience of households to food On-going 5,843 Contribution FAO 68,300 insecurity in South Sudan DFID BRACE: Building Resilience through Asset Completed 20,328 Grant WFP / FAO 71,000 Creation and Enhancement BRACED: Building Resilience and Adaptation to Completed 6,600 Grant Concern ww 240,000 Climate Extremes and Disasters Programme BRACE II (Building Resilience through Asset On-going 32,472 Grant WFP / FAO 75,900 Creation and Enhancement - Phase II) - WFP&FAO component BRACE II (Building Resilience through Asset On-going 9,240 Grant World Vision 150,000 Creation and Enhancement - Phase II) - NGO component HARISS: Humanitarian and Resilience Programme On-going 13,200 Grant OXFAM 150,000 - FSL project (Oxfam) HARISS: Humanitarian and Resilience Programme On-going 14,520 Grant GOAL 1,440,000 - FSL project (GOAL-Mercy Corps) HARISS: Humanitarian and Resilience Programme On-going 18,964 Contribution FAO 61,600 HH (a total - FAO ELRP of 123,200 individuals) Building Resilience through Asset Creation and on-going 3,604 Contribution FAO-WFP 391,982 vulnerable Enhancement - Phase Two (BRACE II) farmers and agro- pastoralists xiii Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Completed 591,972 Contribution Concern World Wide 10,000 HHs Extremes and Disasters Programme (BRACED) UFSLM: Urban Food Security, Markets and Completed 7,920 Grant GIZ Livelihoods Netherlands South Sudan Agribusiness Development Program On-going 6,436 Grant MOT Mac Donald (SSADP) Feeder roads construction On-going 13,472 Contribution IFAD Seed Sector Development Program On-going 2,657 Contribution AGRA 650000 HHs (if funding needs are met) Addressing Root Causes Fund (ARC) On-going 15,960 Grant ACCORD, CARE Direct beneficiaries (number) Emergency Resilience Livelihood Programme NEW - hard 6,000 Contribution FAO commitment Youth and Women Agribusiness Entrepreneurship NEW - hard 1,200 Contribution SPARK 300 (50% women) Programme commitment European Union SORUDEV - Agriculture and Food Information Completed 13,394 Grant FAO GSS System for decision support (AFIS) SORUDEV - Feeder Roads On-going 24,360 Grant WFP SORUDEV - Smallholder component completed 14,400 Grant NRC, HARD, CONCERN, NPA Food Security Thematic Programme - ongoing On-going 15,600 Grant NGOs ZEAT BEAD - AMTIP Completed 4,680 Grant GIZ Enhanced Knowledge and Education for Resilient On-going 6,000 Contribution FAO Over 86,000 Pastoral Livelihoods in South Sudan / Capacity individuals Enhancement for Resilient Pastoral Livelihoods in South Sudan Improving livelihoods, social peace and stability in Completed 1,320 Contribution FAO 1,600 HH (27,000 the Abyei Area final beneficiaries) ZEAT BEAD - Sustainable Agricultural tendering 13,800 Grant NGOs Development through Strengthening Extension, Inputs Supply and Services ZEAT BEAD - Enhanced local value addition and On-going 4,800 Grant UNIDO strengthening value chains xiv ZEAT BEAD - Feeder Road Construction in On-going 45,600 Grant UNOPS support of Trade and Market development in South Sudan Trust Fund – SURUDEV SSL Contracting 18,000 Grant NGOs/FAO Strengthening the Livelihoods Resilience of On-going 33,096 Contribution FAO pastoral/agropastoral Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Communities in South communities Sudan’s cross-border areas with Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda FAO Support to implementation of the Foot and Mouth On-going 451 Contribution FAO States/National Disease (FMD) Progressive Control Pathway Ministry of (PCP) in South Sudan Livestock and Fisheries National Aquaculture Development Strategy On-going 999 Contribution FAO States/National (NADS) for South Sudan Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Technical assistance for management of Fall NEW - hard 266 Contribution FAO Ministry of Armyworm in South Sudan commitment Agriculture Support for surveillance, monitoring and control of NEW - hard 1,000 Contribution FAO Ministry of the fall army worm commitment Agriculture JICA Project for Comprehensive Agricultural On-going 9,371 Grant JICA Development Master Plan (CAMP) (with JICA consultant team) Project for Irrigation Development Master Plan Completed 8,530 Grant JICA (IDMP) (with JICA consultant team) Project for Capacity Development for On-going 4,835 Grant JICA CAMP/IDMP Implementation (TBD) (with JICA consultant team) SIDA Improved food security and livelihood On-going 3,765 Contribution FAO 10,050 HH development for agro-pastoralist communities in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap States Improved food security, nutritional status and On-going 1,450 Contribution FAO 13,200 incomes among vulnerable households in Juba, South Sudan xv Improved food security and livelihood On-going 3,600 Grant FAO 10'050 HH development for agro-pastoral communities in Nothern Bahr-el-Gazal and Warrap States Improved food security and livelihood On-going 3,600 Grant FAO 10'050 HH development for agro-pastoral communities in Nothern Bahr-el-Gazal and Warrap States Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster Support On-going 1,300 Grant WFP FSL Cluster Food Security & Livelihood support to urban and On-going 2,000 Grant FAO 30,000 peri-urban poor, Juba Improving Food Security in Akobo County, Jonglei On-going 1,410 Contribution ACTED 16,560 State Food security and livelihoods support for farmers On-going 1,220 Grant Caritas Belgium 17,200 HH & IDP’s from Yei and Maridi States and refugees in Bidibidi, Uganda Enhancing the Food Security and Livelihoods On-going 1,070 Grant CARE 17400 Coping Mechanisms for Conflict Affected Communities in Torit & Pageri Administrative Area, Eastern Equatoria State Supporting vulnerable communities through On-going 400 Grant Mercy Corps 1200 improved coping mechanisms for food insecurity and livelihoods in Mundri East/WE Spain Lakes State Agro-pastoral Community Resilience On-going 2,400 Contribution FAO 7,200 individuals Programme UK Aid AECF: Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (South On-going 4,884 Grant AGRA 22,000 Sudan Window) USAID Sustainable Agriculture for Economic Resiliency On-going 2,700 Contribution FAO 60000 HHs (SAFER) Project in South Sudan Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Participating Completed 30,000 Grant USDA PASA Agency Service Agreement (PASA) Land O’Lakes Livestock Development and Diary Completed 6,199 Grant Land O’ Lakes (LOL) Cooperatives Programme (LDDCP) xvi Volunteers of Economic Growth Alliance (VEGA) Completed 21,000 Grant VEGA (Leader with Sudan Agricultural Marketing Associate Agreement and Enterprise Development Program (LWA) The Food, Agribusiness and Rural Markets Completed 54,239 contract Abt Associates, Inc. (FARM) Seeds for Development (S4D) 1 Completed 15,000 Grant International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Seeds for Development (S4D) 2 Completed 5,200 Grant Alliance for a Green revolution in Africa (AGRA) Rebuilding of Higher Education in Agriculture Completed 10,555 Grant American Council on (RHEA) Education/ HED/ Virginia Tech University Dr. John Garang Memorial University of Completed 9,797 Grant Texas A&M AgriLife Science and Technology (JG-MUST) Research Famine Early Warning Systems Network On-going 3,010 Grant Chemonics (FEWSNET) Jonglei Food Security Program (JFSP) Completed 100,000 Grant CRS-United States Catholic Jonglei State Conference Bishops Inc communities Resilience and Food Security Program (RFSP) On-going 39,000 Grant CRS-United States Catholic 868,500 Conference Bishops Inc DCA Guarantee – Agricultural Credit Expansion in Completed 1,021 Equity Bank, KCB Ltd., South Sudan (ACESS) FSSL Ltd. Borlaug Higher Education for Agricultural On-going 2,928 Grant World Bank Office of the South Sudan Research and Development (BHEARD) Publisher (WBOP) Lecturers Universities Livelihoods Recovery and Resilience Program On-going 2,018 Grant Catholic ReliefServices Communities (LRRP) (CRS) affected by conflict The Food, Agribusiness and Rural Markets (FARM Completed 11,999 contract Abt Associates, Inc. Farmers II) Sustainable Agriculture for Economic Resilience On-going 27,000 Grant FAO Communities (SAFER) affected by conflict South Sudan Coffee Initiative (SSCI) Completed 3,180 Grant Technoserve INC 1,500 South Sudanese smallholder farmers in CES Sustainable Agriculture for Economic Resiliency NEW - hard 2,700 Contribution FAO 60000 HHs (SAFER) Project in South Sudan commitment Responsive Assistance for Priority Infrastructure On-going 26,000 Grant UNOPS Communities (RAPID) affected by conflict xvii World Bank South Sudan Emergency Food and Nutrition On-going 7,500 Contribution FAO, WFP, UNICEF 30 000 HHs Project (EFNP) Southern Sudan Emergency Food Crisis Response On-going 2,500 Contribution FAO 6000 HHs Project (SSEFCRP) Southern Sudan Emergency Food Crisis Response On-going 29,000 Grant Ministry of Agriculture & 384,500 Project (SSEFCRP) Food Security Safety Net and Skills Development Project On-going 21,000 Contribution Ministry of Agriculture & 52,000 HHs (SNSDP) Food Security xviii BIBLIOGRAPHY FAO (2016a). South Sudan Situation Report April 2016. FEWS NET (2016). South Sudan Food Security Outlook Update April 2016. FEWS NET (2016a). South Sudan Food Security Outlook February to September 2016. FEWSNET (2016c). South Sudan Food Security Outlook. February 2016. http://www.fews.net/east-africa/south-sudan/food-security-outlook/february-2016 FEWSNET (2016d). South Sudan Food Security Outlook Update April 2016. “Rapid Social and Vulnerability Assessment (RSVA).� July 2016. World Bank. Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan (covering the period from 15 November 2017 to 16 February 2018), New York: United Nations Security Council, S/2018/163 (28 Feb 2018) para 28 ‘Doing cash differently: How cash transfers can transform humanitarian aid,’ Report of the High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers, London: ODI (2015), page 9 Iffat Idris, ‘Conflict-sensitive cash transfers: unintended negative consequences,’ K4D Helpdesk report (30 Aug 2017) available at http://www.gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/200-Conflict-Sensitive- Cash-Transfers- Unintended-Negative-Consequences.pdf, accessed on 12 Mar 2018 Nick Maunder, Annemarie Hoogendoorn, David Coombs, George Fenton and Lia Carboni, ‘South Sudan: An evaluation of WFP’s Portfolio (2011-2016),’ Rome: WFP, OEV/2016/013 (2017), volume 1, page 3; ‘Food and Nutrition Assistance for Relief and Recovery, Supporting Transition and Enhancing Capabilities to Ensure Sustainable Hunger Solutions in South Sudan: Standard Project Report’ Rome: WFP (2017), page 6 Humanitarian Response Plan 2018 December 2017 Bulletin,’ Juba: Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster, available at http://fscluster.org/sites/default/files/documents/fslc_ssd_hrp2018_final.pdf, accessed on 5 Apr 2018; Andreas Kiaby, ‘Cash in conflict: cash programming in South Sudan,’ Humanitarian Exchange no. 68 (January 2017) page 43 ‘Guidance for Cash Transfer Programming within South Sudan,’ Cash Transfer and Markets Working Group (February 2015) page 34 WFP (2017)
 Nick Maunder, Annemarie Hoogendoorn, David Coombs, George Fenton and Lia Carboni, ‘South Sudan: An evaluation of WFP’s Portfolio (2011-2016),’ Rome: xi WFP, OEV/2016/013 (2017), volume 2 Nick Maunder, Annemarie Hoogendoorn, David Coombs, George Fenton and Lia Carboni, ‘South Sudan: An evaluation of WFP’s Portfolio (2011-2016),’ Rome: Nick Maunder, Annemarie Hoogendoorn, David Coombs, George Fenton and Lia Carboni, ‘South Sudan: An evaluation of WFP’s Portfolio (2011-2016),’ FAO/WFP (26 May 2017), pages 24-25 Naomi Pendle, ‘Food Security, Access and Conflict Sensitivity: What opportunities do livestock offer in South Sudan?’ CSRF Briefing Note (2017) UNICEF (2015). South Sudan Humanitarian Response Plan. South Sudan Education Sector Operational Plan-HRP 2016. UNICEF (2016). South Sudan Humanitarian Situation Report 7 April 2016 UNICEF, FAO & WFP (2016). Mitigating the Impact of Economic Decline on the Urban Poor in Juba. March 2016. xii