2017年-世界发展银行全球_Opportunities_for_Improving_Urban_Service_Delivery_in_South_Sudan_-_A_Tale_of_Two_Cities___Part_3_Synthesis_Report_107页_2mb

Summary of "Opportunities for Improving Urban Service Delivery in South Sudan: A Tale of Two Cities"

Core Content

This report is the third and final part of a three-part series examining alternative service delivery models in urban areas of South Sudan, focusing on Juba and Aweil. It highlights the challenges and opportunities in improving service delivery in the context of limited government capacity, conflict, and economic instability.

Main Points

1. Study Context and Objectives

• The study was conducted in Juba (capital) and Aweil (mid-sized city) to analyze urban service delivery models in South Sudan.
• It aimed to:
  • Identify successful service delivery models in primary education, basic health care, and urban utilities (water and electricity).
  • Recommend relevant international examples.
  • Determine the appropriate role of government and required capacity building support.

2. Alternative Service Delivery Models

• The World Bank outlines eight models, four of which are based on accountability relationships.
• In South Sudan, the key models are:
  • Government delivery (primarily donor-funded).
  • NGO, church, and private sector delivery.
• These models are used to address gaps in public service delivery, especially in the context of weak state capacity and conflict.

3. Service Delivery in Primary Education

• Access:
  • In Juba, 83% of school-aged children are enrolled; 38% in government schools, 24% in private, and 36% in religious schools.
  • In Aweil, 63% are enrolled; 58% in government schools and 34% in private schools.
  • Enrollment varies by ethnicity (Dinka vs Bari) and household income.
• Cost and Quality:
  • Private schools are seen as offering better quality education but at a higher cost.
  • In Juba, families in private schools spend 123% more than those in government schools.
  • In Aweil, the cost is 149% higher.
  • Textbook shortages are widespread, affecting all schools.
• Accountability:
  • Parent-teacher associations (PTAs) are present in Juba but not widely known.
  • In Aweil, the county education department is absent, and accountability mechanisms are limited.

4. Basic Health Care

• Access:
  • In Juba, 54% of respondents visited a health facility in the month prior to the survey.
  • In Aweil, the rate is 76%, with most using the Aweil Civil Hospital (government-NGO joint).
  • Health facilities are generally close to households.
• Cost and Quality:
  • No consensus on which provider offers the best quality service.
  • Private clinics are more equipped but also more expensive.
  • Government and NGO facilities are less equipped but more affordable.
  • Despite nominal fees, government facilities often charge similar prices to private ones due to lack of resources.
• Accountability:
  • In Juba, the county health department is active, but in Aweil, it is not.
  • Boma health committees were introduced but are not widely used.
  • Complaints are more commonly made in person at health facilities.

5. Water Utilities

• Access:
  • In Juba, 50% of respondents have sufficient access to water; 77% pay for water delivery, but most comes from untreated Nile River water.
  • In Aweil, 95% of respondents have enough water, as it is easily accessible through boreholes and shallow wells.
• Cost and Quality:
  • Untreated river water is cheaper but poses health risks.
  • Only 33% of households treat their water with chlorine or alternatives.
  • In Aweil, water is available for free or a small monthly charge, but treated water is not accessible.
• Accountability:
  • Water user committees are responsible for mobilizing community funds for borehole maintenance.
  • The county water department carries out repairs.

6. Electric Utilities

• Access:
  • Electricity is not publicly available; it is accessed via private generators and solar panels.
  • In Juba, 25% of households have electricity; in Aweil, only 5%.
  • IDPs in Juba have lower access to electricity compared to other groups.
• Cost and Quality:
  • Electricity costs US$11 per month, representing 23% of average household income in Juba and 31% in Aweil.
  • No formal accountability mechanisms exist between electricity providers and the government.

7. Impact of Conflict

• Education:
  • Schools reopened within two weeks of the July 2016 crisis.
  • Enrollment returned to pre-crisis levels, but perceptions of safety dropped from 73% to 50%.
• Health Care:
  • Government hospitals remained open during the crisis.
  • Despite this, they faced usual issues like lack of resources and staff.
• Water and Electricity:
  • Post-conflict, access to water and electricity was affected, with some areas experiencing significant disruptions.

8. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and Access to Services

• IDPs are concentrated in urban areas, increasing pressure on infrastructure and services.
• In Juba, only 66% of IDP children attend school, indicating a challenge in service access for vulnerable groups.

Key Information

• Government Role:
  • Government financing for basic services has drastically declined, especially in recent years.
  • Government departments are often under-resourced and lack accountability mechanisms.
• Donor and NGO Support:
  • Donor-funded programs support education and health services.
  • NGOs and private entities play a critical role in filling gaps in service delivery.
• Urban Challenges:
  • Rapid and unplanned urban growth, along with influx of returnees and IDPs, has strained urban infrastructure.
  • International aid has mainly focused on rural areas, leaving urban populations underserved.
• Data Sources:
  • The study used quantitative and qualitative data from 1,200 interviews in Juba and Aweil.
  • It included surveys and interviews with key informants such as government officials, service providers, and users.

Recommendations

• Primary Education:
  • Strengthen accountability mechanisms like PTAs.
  • Promote equitable access through targeted support for vulnerable groups.
• Basic Health Care:
  • Improve resource availability and staffing.
  • Expand community-based accountability models.
• Water Utilities:
  • Enhance water treatment infrastructure.
  • Support community-led water management initiatives.
• Electric Utilities:
  • Develop a formal electricity delivery framework.
  • Encourage public-private partnerships to expand access.

Conclusion

The report emphasizes the critical role of alternative service delivery models in South Sudan’s urban areas, especially in the absence of strong government capacity. It calls for a more integrated and accountable approach to service delivery, with a focus on sustainable solutions and addressing the unique challenges faced by urban populations.