This evaluation assessed UNDP’s contribution in the two programme outcome areas for the period 2017‑2021. The evaluation was conducted at a time South Sudan celebrated its 10th anniversary as a young nation trying to address significant peace and development challenges. This period also marked the implementation of the UN reforms and renewed UNDP and UNMISS engagement. Building on the key findings set out in the previous chapter, the conclusions and recommendations presented here focus on strategic issues pertaining to programme approach, institutional capacity to strengthen peace, and stabilization and local economic resilience.
3.1 Conclusions Conclusion 1. UNDP’s contribution to keeping the momentum of recovery, peace and development processes in South Sudan has been important. Not adequately articulating its strategic role in South Sudan where there is an urgency to address critical development drivers of peace and stabilization has reduced UNDP’s strategic positioning. UNDP has created a niche for itself in the recovery and stabilization response in South Sudan. As a service provider, funds manager and one of the key providers of support to peace and reconciliation processes at the national and state levels, UNDP continues to play an important role in South Sudan. Given the nascent government capacity, UNDP’s support to the immediate needs of key government institutions enabled their functioning. With its well‑established partnership with the government, UNDP has the comparative advantage to contribute to policy and reform process and sustainable institutional capacities. This potential advantage is yet to be fully utilized. The National Dialogue and Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan are intended to increase the pace of recovery, reconciliation and stabilization. The humanitarian, development and peace situation in South Sudan warrants a combination of responses, both short‑term and longer‑term. The under‑prioritization of development and peacebuilding linkages remains a challenge in South Sudan, with the international response being predominantly humanitarian. For UNDP, bringing a resilience approach to the international response needed well‑conceived collaborations between humanitarian, peace and development actors, anchored in national frameworks. While such efforts are evolving, UNDP opted for short‑term support. The success of UNDP’s resilience programme approach in South Sudan depends on the organization’s transition from a micro‑project implementing mode to an agency that facilitates sustainable solutions. UNDP is yet to clarify its core offering for accelerating the pace of peacebuilding and statebuilding in South Sudan. Conclusion 2. Sustainable institutional capacities at the national and state levels are critical for consolidating stability and peace as well as transitioning to development. UNDP’s short‑term support had limitations in strengthening institutional processes necessary for building sustainable capacities. While UNDP contributed to filling critical capacity gaps essential for the functioning of government institutions, it is yet to leverage short‑term human resource support for building public administration, civil services and local governance capacities. UNDP is yet to balance its role as a capacity provider and that of an enabler of more sustainable capacities. There is scope for a systematic approach for strengthening institutional and human capacities. A wide programme spread, whether with respect to geographical spread or programme themes, was counterproductive to UNDP positioning itself as an expert organization. As the Principal Recipient of Global Fund for an extended period supporting health systems strengthening component, UNDP has yet to engage in sector reforms.
Chapter 3. Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response
46
