The Perspectives of People Living in Poverty on Development and Dimensions of Poverty

This report assesses Sida’s South Sudan portfolio across all sectors and strategies in 2019.

Main evaluation method: we reviewed the 32 active contributions in South Sudan, with special focus on the 8 contributions in the South Sudan Strategy.

Positives: Given the pervasive needs and widespread poverty in South Sudan, we find it relevant that Sida’s portfolio of contributions directly address people living in poverty. The widespread poverty in South Sudan has allowed for the target groups to be defined rather broadly (i.e., women and girls being the primary target group).  Nevertheless, our review indicated that specific vulnerable groups, such as people living with disabilities and IDPs are also targeted by the contributions.

Potential shortcomings:  Donors’ efforts to build Government capacity have yielded limited results. Directly addressing people living in poverty has its limitations in terms of sustainability: Sida’s partners deliver primarily direct services or support to the population, rather than indirectly alleviating poverty through institution-building or systems strengthening. However, the challenges of working with the Government leave few viable alternatives.

This report assesses Sida’s Zambia portfolio across all sectors and strategies in 2019.

Main evaluation method: analysis of data for all 77 contributions and an in-depth document review for the 23 contributions above SEK 20 million.

Positives: The portfolio had a balanced geographic and sectoral distribution, with several contributions in Zambia’s poorest provinces. It explicitly targets women, children and some marginalised groups of particular relevance in the Zambian context.

The Embassy has taken concrete steps to address identified gaps in the portfolio’s targeting of the poor e.g. within agriculture and livelihood interventions.

Direct and indirect targeting of poverty was well-balanced. Some contributions explicitly addressed multidimensional poverty, e.g. through cash transfer. These improved food security of the poor, but have not had an impact on assets accumulation or income generation due to increasing food prices.

Potential shortcomings: While potential for synergies across strategic areas exists, these are challenging to realise. Indirect poverty-reducing interventions (e.g. developing agricultural markets and renewable energy in remote areas) require longer-term support to effectively benefit the poor.

The lack of systematic monitoring data on which specific groups are being reached within a broader defined “marginalised” group limits the evidence base.