UNDG – DONOR MEETING ON JOINT FUNDING MECHANISMS
Intervention of the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in
Sudan
“The role of MPTFs in strengthening the
international response to protracted crises”
Key messages:
 MPTFs are an effective vehicle for the planning, coordination, delivery and
monitoring of humanitarian and development assistance in complex
protracted crises and development settings.
 The international community should aim for the establishment of an
effective center of gravity similar to the Sudan CHF for the coordination and
funding of development assistance.
 Successful coordination requires communication, monitoring, analysis and
advocacy capacities. If the UNRC/HC is expected to ensure coordination
between humanitarian, early recovery and development assistance, RC
support capacities need to be strengthened and professionalized.
 The current trend towards bilaterally planned and delivered aid is
endangering the purpose of internationally agreed aims of assistance.
1
I. Sudan - Context and the Structure of Aid
Overview of key challenges
Figure 1: Overview of Humanitarian Challenges.
Source: OCHA 2013.
Following the secession of South Sudan in 2011, Sudan lost 75 percent of its oil
production, amounting to around 60 percent of fiscal revenues, leading to declining
growth, rising inflation and large pressures on foreign currency reserves and
exchange rates. With key issues still unresolved from the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA), such as border demarcation, debt management, and the status
of Abyei Area, the period since secession has been marked by political and
economic instability and Sudan remains a fragile state ranked 166 in the Human
Development Index.
Humanitarian situation
Sudan’s humanitarian needs are mainly caused by armed conflict and food
insecurity. Over the last year, conflict has intensified, causing the humanitarian
situation to deteriorate. The worst affected areas are Darfur, South Kordofan and
Blue Nile states where conflict has been protracted and intense. The overall
humanitarian situation is compounded by the fragility of many of Sudan’s
neighbouring countries, environmental factors, and a weak economy. Women and
children are amongst the most vulnerable. The humanitarian challenges are likely to
remain throughout 2015. In terms of key numbers:
2

3.2 million displaced people need relief aid to live in dignity: Internally
displaced people (3.1 million) and newly arrived refugees (0.1 million) have
similar needs. They require protection and immediate relief assistance
including health, food, nutrition, water and sanitation, shelter, education
and information, to live in dignity. While about half a million people were
newly displaced in 2014 another 2.6 million people have been living in
displacement for at least one year in Darfur, South and West Kordofan and
Blue Nile States. Those living in protracted displacement also need
opportunities to enhance their self-reliance through diversified livelihood
interventions and integrated programming.

1.2 million children across the country suffer from wasting and need
dedicated nutrition support: Both displaced and resident children suffer from
chronic malnutrition in Sudan. Emergency level rates have been observed for
the last decades and 59 out of the 184 Localities in Sudan have a prevalence
of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) above emergency threshold levels of 15
per cent. Some localities in North Darfur and Red Sea State report GAM
rates above 30 per cent. 550,000 children will suffer from severe acute
malnutrition in 2015.

0.7 million people need long-term protection and durable solutions: Several
groups of people need long-term solutions to transition to a more
sustainable future. These include 350,000 South Sudanese who lived in
Sudan before secession and are at risk of statelessness. Another 170,000
refugees and asylum seekers from CAR, Chad, Eritrea, and Ethiopia live in
Sudan awaiting durable solutions. 150,000 IDPs and former Sudanese
refugees have recently returned to their area of origin and need to rebuild
their lives.
Development challenges
Progress on sustainable human development and towards the achievement of the
MDGs in Sudan is seriously hampered by (1) multi-layered forms of (human)
insecurity and conflict, (2) the absence of adequate or alternative livelihoods
opportunities and (3) exclusion for key political processes both at central and local
levels.
Multiple inter-related conflicts and high-levels of violence persist across Sudan years
after the conclusion of the CPA. Ongoing conflicts have deep political and
development root-causes, including unbalanced resource allocation to states by the
Government of Sudan1, as well as inter-communal competition over scarce natural
resources (land, water) and tribalism. Violence is exacerbated by the spread of small
arms; youth unemployment and limited national conflict resolution mechanisms.
1
World Bank Study, 2011
3
Women remain disproportionately affected, while their role in promoting peace is
underutilized. Nine of Sudan’s 18 states are directly affected by continued conflict
and insecurity, and the status of the Abyei Area remains unsolved. With the
eruption of conflict in South Sudan and few prospects for an immediate solution,
the border belt will face continued challenges and instability.
Figure 2: Poverty Incidence in Sudan.
Sources: CBS 2009 & UNDP 2013.
A lack of reform to rule of law institutions and legislation further threatens human
rights. The overall democratic transformation of Sudan has remained precarious,
with the country struggling with many political, social and ethnic challenges that
involve human rights violations. Rule of law institutions face a challenging task to
harmonize national laws with international and regional obligations, which require
clear policies and administrative support.
Scarce energy resources and environmental degradation has led to increased
competition over natural resources. Poverty, mismanagement of natural resources,
large-scale land acquisition and mining by investment capital as well as regional
climate change and instability during the last five decades, are amongst the main
reasons for the current situation. Access to water is inadequate throughout many
regions with a per-capita share of 790 cubic meters per year2 which places Sudan
among countries that fall below the water poverty line. Deforestation and
decreased biodiversity affects Sudan more than any other country in Africa, with
2
Figure from 2008.
4
Darfur a major contributor to the trend where the impact of war and unsustainable
livelihoods strategies has accelerated the loss of forest cover.
Continued conflict, insecurity and inaccessibility to many areas in country has also
led to serious shortfalls in health care and functioning health facilities particularly in
rural areas, resulting in low quality of medical services and consequently increased
vulnerability to HIV, malaria/ tuberculosis (TB) incidence.
Facing a failing economy and the proliferation of poverty, Sudan is characterized by
wide rural – urban and regional disparities. High levels of poverty are illustrative of
the bias against rain-fed agriculture, the absence of pro-poor policies, erosion of
governance, the persisting traditional nature of rural economy, lack of disaster
management strategies, loss of land capability due to desertification and continued
conflict in the face of accelerated population growth and globalization.
Poverty is heightened by inefficient development plans and strategies, reduced
public expenditures on basic services, the erosion of land and natural resources, as
well as by conflict and longstanding international political and economic blockades.
According to the 2009 National Baseline Household Survey (NBHS 2009) by the
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 46.5% of the population is below the poverty line.
The large numbers of IDPs due to ongoing conflicts and natural conditions coupled
with the lifting of fuel and strategic commodity subsidies continues to aggravate
poverty levels. The significant increase in the cost of living as reflected by an
accelerating inflation rate is expected to aggravate the poverty situation in Sudan.
The official annual inflation rate for 2013 was 36.5 per cent. The partial lifting of fuel
subsidies in September 2013 has further added to price hikes. In addition, the
depreciation of the Sudanese Pound has further compounded Sudan’s inflation rate.
According to the 2014 budget, the trade deficit will widen from $ (-2.6) billion in
2013 to $ (- 3.3) billion in 2014. Sudan is a heavily indebted country, with external
debt increasing from 82.2 per cent of GDP in 2012 to 86.7 per cent of GDP by the
end of 2013. When South Sudan seceded, Sudan shouldered the entire debt burden.
This was agreed in September 2012 between the two countries “on condition that
Sudan obtains debt relief within two years through the Highly Indebted Poor
Countries Initiative”. As of February 2014, agreement on the HIPC initiative is yet to
be reached. Sudan’s economic and political instability; its underdeveloped physical
infrastructure; and its lack of adequately qualified manpower, as well as its poor
reputation for business, mean it struggles to attract either foreign or domestic
investment. The country ranks low in Transparency International’s most recent
“Corruption Perceptions Index” and is in the bottom quartile of the World Bank’s
global “Doing Business” report for 2013.
The lack of enhancement and the loss of skills and professional competencies
experienced during years of conflict and insecurity, as well as a brain drain linked to
population displacement and lack of economic opportunities can deprive the
country of essential capacities within the public and private sectors alike. Sudan’s
depleted human capital has become a major challenge to development.
5
Slow pace of establishing robust democratic Governance institutions negatively
impacts the inclusiveness of political processes and development planning. While
decentralized structures are formally in place, state/ local governments have weak
capacities to plan, prioritize and manage revenues, and coordinate service delivery.
Citizen participation in local governance remains limited.
Failures of governance based on perceptions of marginalization and internal
breakdown, among others, have historically contributed to creating an environment
conducive to conflict, and to a high level of insecurity and violence. The launch of
the National Dialogue is an attempt by the government to address some of the key
sources of discontent amongst the opposition and public. However the inclusiveness
and openness of this process is questioned. With national elections announced for 2
April 2014, a turbulent period ahead is expected with increased pressure on media
and freedom of expression.
Regional disparities
While the above overview is relevant to all states in Sudan, regional differences are
very pronounced and lead to slightly different “leitmotivs” in terms of development
challenges. In Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile states the complex set of
development challenges is dominated by multi-layered forms of conflict and
insecurity. In the East (Red Sea, Kassala and Gedaref states), the key obstacle to
sustainable development is regional marginalization coupled with the absence of
rule of law and the spread of human trafficking and other forms of organized crime.
In the North (the “forgotten states”), serious vulnerabilities to environmental
challenges and climate change further increase regional marginalization. At the
central and national level political conflicts, finally, a lack of inclusiveness of political
processes and inadequate policy and development planning capacities further
aggravate regional challenges and prevents the development and implementation
of a concerted and effective response. These regional differences need to be taken
into consideration and addresses through carefully adjusted development
interventions.
Structure of Aid
Within this overall institutional and political context, the international aid
architecture has evolved over the past 10 years to be composed of 3 parallel
components. The delivery system for humanitarian assistance has grown into one
of the largest humanitarian operations world-wide. Common strategy development
and coordination is ensured through the annual HNO – SRP process. In 2013, 24 % of
humanitarian aid interventions were funded and coordinated in the CHF / SRP
context. As compared to development assistance, this relatively high level of
coordination creates a center of gravity for coordination between all partners, and
bilateral and ECHO resources are therefore also allocated within the SRP
framework.
6
At the same time, there is an increasing recognition that early recovery assistance
aiming at peace-building, the re-establishment of basic services and the
strengthening of community resilience for return and / or integration needs to be
built up significantly. Interventions addressing community resilience and durable
solutions are certainly included in the SRP and funded through the CHF. They are,
however, chronically underfunded. In the CHF context, approximately US$ 1.5
million out of 68 annually are allocated to early recovery, equivalent to 2.5% of
humanitarian resources.
Attempting to complement these resources, to lay the foundation for
reconstruction and development and to create a dedicated funding vehicle, the
Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund (DCPSF) has been established by the
United Nations in 2007. The DCPSF is currently operating in 34 localities in five
states of Darfur and has channeled approximately 64 million into peacebuilding and
early recovery activities, representing an additional approximate annual early
recovery funding of US$ 7 – 8 million.
While not sufficient to create a center of gravity similar to the CHF / CERF, the mere
fact that key donors come together regularly and discuss early recovery issues
positively impacts coordination in this area. It is important to note, however, that
the DCPSF is only focusing on Darfur. A similar coordination and funding vehicle
does not exist for the South and the East.
Figure 3: Net Aid Inflows to Sudan.
Sources: World Bank 2012 and UNDP 2014.
Reconstruction and development assistance has been continuously declining since
2008. Once standing at US$ 2.6 billion, it is today estimated at under US$ 980
million. Importantly, most of the approximately US$ one billion net official
7
development assistance provided in 2013 to Sudan escapes any form of
coordination. The Sudan Multi-Partner Fund (SMPF) of the World Bank, until now
the only multi-lateral funding instrument focusing of development and
reconstruction assistance throughout Sudan, is currently capitalized at US$ 10
million. The UN Darfur Fund established to fund and coordinate the assistance of
the international community in Darfur against a joint reconstruction and
development strategy for Darfur developed in 2012 – 2013, is currently funded with
US$ 88 million - by the government of Qatar. Taken together, both instruments
represent approximately 5% of development aid provided to Sudan. The remaining
95% of aid is funded bilaterally and not channeled through a formalized interpartner coordination mechanism.
While the overall capitalization of the new instruments for development funding
and coordination remain for the time being low, the strategy development and
funds allocation process has allowed facilitating dialogue and coordination between
partners that did not exist before. Especially, it has facilitated dialogue between
traditional and non-traditional donors, notably between DAC countries on the one
hand and Gulf countries as well Brazil, India and South Africa, on the other.
II. 3 Key Challenges
1. Aligning humanitarian, early recovery and development assistance
In a complex protracted crisis context, the nexus between humanitarian and
development assistance cannot be seen and addressed as a linear process from
humanitarian towards development assistance. While humanitarian needs arise in
geographically confined areas, significant development opportunities exist in other
parts of the country and have the potential to create positive spill-overs into areas
dominated by conflict and resulting humanitarian needs. Humanitarian needs and
development opportunities exist at the same time and need to be addressed
simultaneously. The underlying theme must therefore be to create alternative
livelihoods opportunities for a suffering population and to strengthen community
resilience against conflict. Consequently, coordination and sequencing of
humanitarian, early recovery and development assistance is one of the key
challenges for the international community.
Given that humanitarian and development assistance are governed by different sets
of principles and necessities, it is not obvious to combine both forms in a single
coordination and funding framework. Humanitarian assistance is guided by
humanitarian principles that cannot be compromised, and is by-and-large provided
without national ownership and leadership. In contrast, sustainable recovery and
development assistance necessarily needs to be owned and co-led by national
institutions.
Precisely for this reason, humanitarian and development coordination & funding
frameworks have developed in parallel in the large crisis countries, such as the
8
Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Iraq,
and Afghanistan.
If we accept that it will be difficult, impractical and possibly counter-productive to
establish a single coordination and funding framework spanning humanitarian, early
recovery and development assistance, we should at least strive for joint funding and
coordination within the fields of humanitarian and development aid. Early recovery
assistance might - as a transitional measure - be separately funded and coordinated,
but should eventually integrate into the two frameworks.
How then can we achieve stronger coordination between humanitarian and
development assistance? For the time being, the only institution spanning both
types of aid is the one of the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator. Judging
from my experience, I can confirm that all information as well as significant
structural opportunities exist at the level of the UNHC/RC to ensure coordination
between the two components, especially since donors and implementing partners in
both fields are to a large extent the same.
Coordination only becomes meaningful, however, when it is based on sound
information management, monitoring, and analysis of progress towards results.
Coordination also requires constant contact with key stakeholders and partners. It
finally
requires
regular
communication and advocacy.
While these capacities are to a
large extent provided through the
Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for
the humanitarian context, similar
support is currently lacking for
development
coordination.
Instead, HC/RCs are required to
fund-raise directly for additional
capacities,
which
partially
compromises the independence of
the institution.
2.
Results and Results
Monitoring
Figure 4: Results Reporting on the CHF GIER Sector
2013. Source: OCHA 2013.
9
Results monitoring and reporting
for humanitarian and development
assistance
has
different
requirements. While humanitarian
assistance needs to predominantly
respond to prerogatives of life
saving
and
protection,
development assistance needs to prove sustainability of results and increased
resilience of communities against conflict and climatic shocks.
During the past 12 years, humanitarian assistance in Sudan has proven to ensure
lifesaving and protection of affected communities, as documented in subsequent
annual reports. Reviewing CHF annual reports since 2006, it becomes clear that
humanitarian results reporting has benefitted from standardization and
professionalization (see figure on GIER sector reporting).
However, it has recently been criticized to generate aid dependency of populations.
Recovery and development assistance aiming at peace building and the
establishment of sustainable livelihoods is becoming increasingly essential; and with
it adequate ways of measuring progress against results that are less tangible then
those of the humanitarian clusters / sectors.
To address this challenge, the DCPSF has introduced in 2013 regular perception
surveys to complement more quantitative monitoring. Based on these surveys, we
can today say that the fund has managed to restore community level trust and
confidence in target areas of interventions. In fact, 188 community-based conflict
mechanisms (CBRM) have been established or revitalized, and 215 community
initiatives throughout Darfur have developed collaborative livelihoods and income
generating schemes as well as management mechanisms.
Figure 5: Mobile M&E pilot initiative by UNDP Sudan.
Source: UNDP 2014.
Nevertheless, credible monitoring of peace-building and sustainable livelihood
results remains a challenge in Darfur and Sudan. Therefore, the UN system is
currently piloting M&E triangular initiatives composed of (a) randomized
10
evaluations, (b) mobile monitoring using sms-administered community and
household surveys, (c) systematic collection and analysis of community narratives,
as well as (d) the use of “big data” for poverty monitoring.
Results monitoring, just as strategy development and planning, requires a common
approach shared between development actors. Multi-partner trust funds therefore
provide an ideal platform for the piloting and comprehensive roll-out of such
methodologies.
3. Mutual stakeholder accountability
As witnessed in stakeholder discussions during the past 3 years, accountability for
commitments and results often turns into a “ping-pong” game during which
stakeholders try to push the ball into the court of others. Such forms of dialogue do
not enable mutual accountabilities, but rather dilute accountabilities and
responsibilities.
The recent experience in the UNDF context indicates, however, that common
strategies, results frameworks as well as common M&E mechanisms might
strengthen mutual accountabilities in as much as they are transparently and
unambiguously defined.
Figure 6: UN Darfur Fund - Governance and Independent Verification. Source: UNDP 2013.
MPTFs especially allow holding international partners, the government and
implementing partners mutually accountable for their interventions and
achievements against a commonly defined framework. Governance structures of
MPTFs also allow for continuous structured dialogue between stakeholders.
11
Learning from the lessons of the past, the UN Darfur Fund includes an Independent
Monitoring Mechanisms that is monitoring and reporting on progress and
achievements of partners against the commonly defined results framework. This
mechanism allows also for the inclusion of civil society interest groups and
universities.
III. Conclusion and Way Forward
Please allow me to conclude in 4 points.
1. MPTFs are an effective vehicle for the coordination, delivery and monitoring
of humanitarian and development assistance in complex protracted crises
and development settings. They strengthen the position, leverage and
impact of the international community, and allow for constructive dialogue
between traditional and emerging donors. In fact, joint strategy
development in the context of Multi-Partner Trust Funds has contributed
significantly to coordination between partners as well as to the dialogue
between the international community and the Government of Sudan.
2. The need for better coordination between humanitarian assistance, early
recovery and development assistance in Sudan is recognized by all
stakeholders. While it is not practical and possibly counter-productive to
establish on single overarching development framework, the international
community should aim for the establishment of an effective center of gravity
similar to the Sudan CHF for the coordination and funding of early recovery
and development assistance.
3. Successful coordination requires communication, monitoring, analysis and
advocacy capacities. If the UNRC/HC is expected to ensure coordination
between humanitarian, early recovery and development assistance, support
capacities need to be strengthened and professionalized.
4. The current trend towards bilaterally planned and delivered aid is
endangering the purpose of internationally agreed aims of assistance, and as
such good humanitarian and development donorship.
I imagine the way forward in Sudan to be as follows:



Facilitation of stakeholder dialogue around a common vision for the
country
Definition of clear development priorities and stakeholder
accountabilities
Promotion and simplification of existing multilateral funding and
coordination instruments, and a possible expansion towards the East
and the South.
12