For the period 2016 to 2021, out of a total expenditure of US$485.8 million, US$201.8 million was spent on managing the Common Humanitarian Fund. In addition, Global Funds comprised US$109.8 million, where UNDP played the role of principal recipient. UNDP programme expenditure was US$122.8 million (of a budget of US$284 million). UNDP had detailed strategies in some areas, for example, access to justice for a comprehensive response. There were, however, challenges in mobilizing resources for longer‑term programmes. One of the factors was humanitarian‑focused funding in South Sudan. It is not evident that UNDP tried to address this funding limitation, in terms of the partnership or convincing donors to use the funds to play the role of an enabler instead of project implementor. As discussed across the findings in this report, inadequate programmatic partnerships are reducing UNDP’s programme efficiency. Well‑conceived programmatic partnerships not only reduce programme costs but also can enable UNDP to better accomplish intended outcomes. Programme delays are impacting UNDP’s contribution. UNDP’s programme management structures were slow in addressing implementation constraints, with significant delays in several projects. While COVID‑19 further increased the delays, this has been a perennial issue during the country programme period. Also, compliance delays and oversight issues can impact UNDP’s credibility as the Principal Recipient of Global Fund and can have implications for programme outcome.
2.5 Programme performance rating Finding 24. UNDP’s performance has been, overall, moderately satisfactory. Although the choice of initiatives is pertinent and has achieved most of the stated outputs, UNDP’s programme approach is yet to demonstrate the value of its support. UNDP is yet to balance short‑term support with longer‑term initiatives essential for accelerating peace and development in South Sudan. Table 2 presents country programme performance scores and disaggregated scores for the two outcomes (Annex 8 presents a detailed analysis of each output). UNDP has supported a range of initiatives in the two outcome areas and a large component of the current and previous country programmes has remained fairly consistent. In an evolving conflict context with significant needs, UNDP support in the areas of peace and reconciliation, rule of law, core governance support, and economic revitalization is largely relevant. These areas align with the vision of South Sudan, the national development strategy and the priorities of the Revitalized Peace Agreement. The activities of the country programme are consistent with the outputs outlined in the programme theory of change.
Chapter 2. findings
40
