After decades of conflict, the GoSS faces a massive task in leading recovery and development efforts, and the challenges of policy-making and implementation in Southern Sudan cannot be overstated. This chapter examines the key policy frameworks guiding government efforts to support long-term recovery and development, focusing on the over-arching vision of ‘taking towns to the people’, expenditure priorities and strategies for economic growth and governance.
These policy areas are relevant to urbanisation in Juba for a number of reasons. First, policies on governance envisage a decentralised Southern Sudan in which Juba is treated equally with all state capitals in policy terms. However, implementation of the Local Government Act is already clashing with a parallel move towards the centralisation of key powers within the GoSS. Juba’s dual status as capital of South Sudan and of Central Equatoria State also raises particular challenges in relation to urban management. Second, the GoSS strategy for economic growth identifies agriculture as a key area for investment. So far, however, the growth in private sector activity has taken place in Juba and surrounding areas within Central Equatoria State, driven by the influx of government ministries, civil servants and aid agencies. Finally, the upcoming referendum on the future of Southern Sudan, due in January 2011, will have an important impact on policy processes.
3.1 ‘Takng towns to the people’
In 2004, a policy of ‘taking towns to the people’ was developed by the SPLM/A to reflect its focus on rural transformation and investment in rural areas. However, as the newly elected President of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, acknowledged in his inaugural address in May, ‘regrettably, for the last five years our achievement in this regard was, if at all, minimal’, and recognised that this lack of progress had contributed to increasing rates of urbanisation (GoSS, May 2010).
‘Taking towns to the people’ is to be given renewed priority and will therefore remain as the underlying vision informing policy-making. It will be based on a decentralised model that supports access to basic services and livelihood opportunities in rural areas and smaller urban centres, to be funded through oil revenues. It is also intended to help counteract the flows of rural-to-urban migration, as well as ease the pressure on services, housing, land and infrastructure in Juba.
3.2 Prorty spendng areas and fnancng trends
In 2008, the government acknowledged that a medium- term plan for Southern Sudan was lacking, and has now adopted a budget planning approach strongly supported by the international community (GoSS, 2008). The medium-term priorities for 2008–2011 are:
• Security: develop efficient and effective armed forces, to safeguard security and implement the CPA.
• Roads: rehabilitate road infrastructure to promote socio- economic and private sector development.
• Health: provide primary health care.
• Education: promote equitable access to primary education. • Rural Water: increase access to safe water and sanitation. • Production: improve rural livelihoods and incomes.
In addition, the government is preparing a development plan with the aim of ensuring a more strategic medium-term focus within budget planning, based on an assessment of income levels and the economy, as well as an overview of the government’s development priorities.
Planned expenditure figures for 2010 show that, out of a total of SDG 4.5 billion ($1.64bn), the security sector will receive 26%, infrastructure and public administration 13% each, education 7% and health 4%, the latter two seeing an increase compared to 2009 of 11% and 7% respectively (GoSS, 2010a), see Figure 2, page 8. The six priority objectives are unlikely to change under the 2011–2013 budget sector plans (HPG interviews, 2010).
Of particular concern is the significant gap between planned and actual allocations by donor governments for 2010. Figure 3 (page 8) shows a decline of 85% in the levels of planned future funding for the period 2009–2012 (GoSS, 2010b). There is also a large shortfall in recorded expenditure. The expenditure report for the first six months of 2009 showed that only 38% of planned expenditure for the year had been spent (ibid.). The need to encourage economic growth and ensure the predictability of government revenues is therefore a priority.
While donor funding is expected to account for 40% of the GoSS budget for 2010, future levels are uncertain. Only USAID has so far committed resources towards longer-term programmes beyond 2011. In the words of one donor representative, ‘many are asking themselves “where do we stand with South Sudan?”’ (HPG interviews, 2010). Issues contributing to this lack of clarity include financial pressures in donor countries and concerns over the mismanagement of funds within the GoSS (a framework for mutual accountability, the Juba Compact, was signed in 2009). The upcoming referendum is a further source of uncertainty.