UNDP Jobs - 96831- Consultancy - RSRTF Early-stage Evaluation

Consultancy - RSRTF Early-stage Evaluation

Location :

Juba, SOUTH SUDAN

Type of Contract :

Individual Contract

Starting Date :

15-Mar-2021

Application Deadline :

22-Feb-21 (Midnight New York, USA)

Post Level :

National Consultant

Duration of Initial Contract :

44 Working days

Languages Required :

English

Expected Duration of Assignment :

44 Working days

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

Background

The South Sudan Reconciliation, Stabilization, and Resilience Trust Fund (RSRTF) is inviting interested South Sudan and/or East Africa-based applicants to submit proposals for conducting an early-stage evaluation of the RSRTF. The main purpose of this evaluation will be to ‘test’ the RSRTF’s approach and to assess the extent to which it is delivering on its founding Terms of Reference (ToR).

Background
South Sudan continues to face significant challenges while progress in its peace process remains slow. Sustained economic decline and mass displacement caused by years of protracted violence still drive an escalating humanitarian crisis. The Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters hazards, including flooding and locust infestation, further exacerbate humanitarian challenges in the country. The implementation of the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan continues to be uneven. 2020 has seen the formation of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity and slow steps towards the reunification of the security forces, but progress in other key areas of the peace agreement remains lacking.

For many communities in South Sudan, the current transitional period, while bringing a decrease in overall levels of violence, is characterised by deep uncertainty. Local conflicts are enmeshed in a complex and multi-layered conflict system that evolved over decades of violence. Power and resource struggles still drive localised tensions. Community-level violence is prone to political manipulation and risks undermining national-level peace efforts. With few avenues for representation in either the political or security spheres, many minority ethnic groups are likely to face continued marginalization. Majority ethnic communities will also likely continue to suffer from the disconnect between citizens and the state.

Despite these many challenges, there are opportunities where context specific strategic planning and alignment of resources can bring about meaningful change. The interlinked, mutually reinforcing nature of joint peace and development work has been promoted since the 2005 United Nations (UN) World Summit. Reconciliation and stabilisation activities can pave the way for more long-term resilience programming that would allow local communities to empower themselves to become more self-reliant. Building the foundations for increased stability is achievable in South Sudan if pursued through the right intersection of programming between the conflict and peacebuilding fields, on the one hand, and the fields of development and humanitarian action, on the other.

About the RSRTF

The RSRTF was designed to work at the intersection of the humanitarian, development, and peace (HDP) fields. The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) together launched the RSRTF in December 2018. The Fund’s objective is to provide strategic financing to integrated programmes that together lessen the destructive drivers of conflict and develop more peaceful and, ultimately, self-reliant communities. Since its establishment, the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden together have contributed over $45 million to the Fund. To date, the Fund has allocated over $23 million to nine projects across South Sudan.

Drawing on the comparative advantages across UNMISS, UN agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society, the RSRTF aims to promote integrated programming across the so-called ‘Triple Nexus’ of the humanitarian, development, and peace fields. The Fund’s programmes are built around three essential elements:

Reconciliation: Restore trust and support peaceful coexistence and social cohesion through gender and age sensitive communal conflict management, prevention, mitigation and reconciliation
Stabilization: Deter violence, restore security, and reinforce the rule of law and equitable access to justice, supported by strategic use of existing peacekeeping capability
Resilience: Invest in community capacities and resources and promote equality, agency and self-reliance to meet basic needs sustainably without reliance on external assistance

Using finance as an enabler to promote more collaborative, coherent and complementary programmes across humanitarian, development and peace building realms, the RSRTF has increased opportunities for collective engagement on political, peace and security issues. The Fund supports comprehensive and durable approaches to overcome fragility, political instability and societal disintegration creating the space to pursue increased resilience-focused programming.

The RSRTF builds strategic alliances to effectively address the root causes and structural drivers of conflict, whether political, security, social, or economic, by bridging silos and capitalising on all relevant capacity and expertise to deliver a ‘whole of system’ approach. The predominantly area-based programmes seek to promote alignment of efforts aimed at tackling some of the country’s entrenched protection challenges, including inter-communal violence and related cattle raiding; enhancement of civic and political space for citizens to participate in political and peace processes; and creation of conducive conditions for the realization of durable solutions to the countries protracted displacement crisis.

In South Sudan’s fluid and fragmented context, the notion of a linear continuum or transition from conflict and acute humanitarian need to reconciliation, recovery and development is unrealistic. The complementary elements supported by the Fund aim to enable more flexible and adaptive programming responsive to the inevitable shifting dynamics of the context, resulting in changeable sequencing and gradations of the reconciliation, stabilization, and resilience elements over time as changing circumstances dictate.

Duties and Responsibilities

Purpose and objectives
The main purpose of this early-stage evaluation is to test the RSRTF’s approach to assess the extent to which the Fund is delivering on its founding Terms of Reference. The RSRTF’s ‘New Way of Working’ approach at the intersection of the ‘Triple Nexus’ differs from more conventional funding mechanisms within the humanitarian, development, and peace realms. Assessing both the Fund’s design, governance and operations as well as the projects funded to date will help assess to what extent the Fund is achieving the goals set out in its ToR. The evaluation will broaden the evidence base underpinning the Fund’s future governance, management, and programming decision-making.
Specifically, this evaluation aims to:

Evaluate and test the Fund’s design and approach, including by reflecting on its founding ToR and its value added compared to other funding mechanisms and actors in South Sudan with similar objectives, and using the OECD-DAC criteria
Evaluate the early implementation of the Fund’s programmes, including the start-up phase of a new area-based programme that launched in early 2021, using the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, to the extent possible
Assess the level and quality of Area Reference Group coordination, project components’ complementarity, and related lessons for future improvements
Capture lessons, innovation, and best practice emerging from early project implementation experience
Provide targeted and actionable recommendations that will help strengthen and improve the Fund’s work and approach
Offer advice on the scope of the Fund’s mid-term/final evaluation, including by outlining the evaluation’s key objectives, scope and indicative evaluation questions

The direct users of this evaluation will be the Fund Steering Committee, the Fund Secretariat, as well as the Fund’s implementing partners and Area Reference Groups. Indirect users will include the South Sudanese population the Fund serves, civil society organizations, UNMISS, UNDP South Sudan, the wider UNCT in South Sudan, and the UNDP Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office.

Scope and indicative evaluation questions
The focus of this evaluation should be to test and review the Fund’s design and approach against its ToR rather than the results of projects implemented to date. However, the Fund’s projects should be evaluated to the extent possible and as agreed between the Evaluation Team and the Fund. The evaluation will cover the December 2018 – February/March 2021 period.

While all OECD-DAC criteria will be used in this evaluation, the purpose and scope of this early-stage evaluation mean that questions around the Fund’s relevance, coherence, efficiency, and sustainability take priority over assessments of the Fund’s effectiveness and impact. This prioritisation is reflected in the number of indicative evaluation questions per OECD-DAC criteria presented in Annex I. The final list of evaluation questions will be agreed between the Evaluation Team and the Fund Secretariat. These are the main evaluation questions:

Relevance: To what extent are the Fund’s design, approach, and projects relevant to the operating context?
Coherence: To what extent are the Fund’s approach and activities across the HDP nexus coherent and coordinated, both internally and in relation to other HDP actors in South Sudan?
Effectiveness: To what extent are the Fund’s approach and projects effective and reaching their stated objectives?
Efficiency: To what extent are the Fund and its projects operating efficiently?
Impact: To what extent does the Fund make a positive difference in the lives of populations that is serves?
Sustainability: How likely are the Fund’s and its projects’ effects to outlast the Fund’s existence?

Approach and methodology
The evaluation will be carried out in accordance with the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards for Evaluation, Ethical Guidelines, and Guidance on Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations. The Evaluation Team will consult both women and men and mainstream gender considerations throughout the evaluation. The Evaluation Team will be held to the highest ethical standards and will be required to sign a code of conduct upon acceptance of the assignment.

The Evaluation Team may employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods including, but not limited to:

Document review of all relevant RSRTF documentation. This would include a review of inter alia; theory of change and results framework; annual funding strategies; quarterly and annual reports; highlights of Steering Committee meetings; and technical/financial monitoring reports
Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including beneficiaries, representatives of civil society organizations, donor community members, UNCT members, implementing partners, and the Fund Secretariat
Surveys and questionnaires, such as an online survey targeted at project implementers, donors, partners, and other key stakeholders, asking for feedback on the Fund’s work
Two field visits and on-site validation of key tangible project outputs

The Evaluation Team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the Evaluation Manager, implementing partners, and direct beneficiaries. If data collection/field missions cannot be conducted due to Covid-19-related or security reasons, then remote interviews may be undertaken through telephone or online channels. No programme beneficiaries, stakeholders, or evaluators should be put in harm’s way and safety is the key priority. In their proposals, Evaluation Teams should therefore outline Covid-19 back-up methods to be used should travel within the country is not possible. If necessary, the Evaluation Team will be asked to develop a more elaborate Covid-19 contingency plan during the inception phase of the evaluation in consultation with the Secretariat.

The final methodological approach including evaluation matrix, interview guide and schedule, and work plan should be clearly outlined in the inception report and be fully discussed and agreed between the Fund Secretariat and the Evaluation Team.

Timeline and implementation arrangements
The evaluation will have three phases:

March 2021: Inception
Late March – May 2021: Implementation
Late May 2021: Wrap-up

From June 2021 onward, the Fund will follow up on the evaluation internally, including by writing a management response and action plan. The evaluation should be concluded 13 weeks after contract award. The Evaluation Team may spend a maximum of 44 working days on this evaluation. The timeline above includes buffers for any unforeseen contingencies as well as for periods in which the Fund Secretariat is reviewing draft submissions. The Fund Secretariat may grant additional working days after consultation with the Evaluation Team if necessitated by any logistical or Covid-19-related contingencies. Members of the Evaluation Team travelling to South Sudan for the purpose of this evaluation are responsible for their own visa applications and for observing Covid-19 travel regulations, including a potential quarantine of 14 days from arrival (please consult the Government of South Sudan’s websites for further information). Days spent in quarantine only count towards the 44 working days if they are used to complete tasks related to this evaluation (e.g. desk-based review or online interviews). The final timeline will be agreed upon with the Evaluation Team and the Fund Secretariat during the inception phase.

The Evaluation Team will take responsibility, with assistance from the Fund Secretariat, for setting up meetings and conducting the evaluation, subject to advanced approval of the methodology submitted in the inception report. The Evaluation Team will report directly to the designated Evaluation Manager and work closely with the Fund Secretariat. The Evaluation Team will be required to travel within to South Sudan to visit project sites, and to conduct at least one data validation workshop with the Fund and its partners to increase data accuracy and reliability. Logistical and limited administrative support will be provided. The Evaluation Team will use their own laptops and cell phones. Other actors involved in the evaluation will have the following responsibilities:

The Fund Secretariat:

Designate an Evaluation Manager who will be the Evaluation Team’s point of contact and provide administrative and management functions, including coordination and quality assurance
Review submissions and select the winning evaluation proposal
Update the Steering Committee on the progress of the evaluation tendering process and implementation
Facilitate access to all relevant and available information required to perform the scope of work
Facilitate introductions to stakeholders and accompany the Evaluation Team on field visits, as appropriate
Review and provide feedback on the inception report and the first draft the evaluation report
Draft and execute the management response
Oversee conformity of the evaluation process with UNEG standards and ethical guidelines

The Steering Committee:

Provide feedback and guidance to the Fund Secretariat in the management of the evaluation, as required
Review and provide feedback on the first draft the evaluation report
Approve the final evaluation report
Approve the management response

The Area Reference Groups:

Facilitate access to all relevant and available information in the field required to perform the scope of work
Facilitate introductions to stakeholders in the field
Actively participate in the data validation workshop(s)

Workload and deliverables
The below table indicates a timeline for evaluation deliverables:

Draft inception report 1 - 2 weeks after award
Revised inception report 2 - 3 weeks after award
Short update email every Friday of the contract period Every week after award
Data from fieldwork 8 - 9 weeks after award
Draft evaluation report, one-page summary, and slide deck 10 - 11 weeks after award
Final evaluation report, one-page summary, and slide deck 12 - 13 weeks after award
Final presentation(s) 13 weeks after award

Exact dates on which deliverables are due will be agreed upon by the Evaluation Team and the Fund Secretariat during inception. Consideration may be given to a time contingency should the evaluation be delayed in any way due to Covid-19.

Suggested structures of the inception (max. 10 pages, excl. annexes) and final reports (max. 35 pages, excl. annexes) will be shared with the evaluation team upon contract award. For all deliverables, draft versions will be submitted for comments, which should be considered for the final version. Several rounds of comments may be necessary. For each round, the Evaluation Team may be asked to prepare a comments matrix, listing all comments received and explaining how they have been addressed.

The final version of the evaluation report and the one-page summary must be proofread and undergo professional graphic design. All deliverables should include relevant graphs, charts and maps to present findings and trends visually. The Fund intends to publish these documents.

Competencies

Team composition
Collectively, the Evaluation Team will demonstrate:

Integrity and fairness, by modelling UN values and ethical standards
Cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability
Extensive evaluation experience of reconciliation, stabilization, and resilience strategies and programmes, and ideally funding instruments
Experience with and institutional knowledge of development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding actors, including the UN, NGOs, civil society, or faith-based groups
In-depth knowledge of the ‘Triple Nexus’ and the ‘New Way of Working’ agenda and coordination mechanisms across humanitarian, development, peacebuilding and security systems
Familiarity with integrating human rights and gender perspectives into evaluations
An appropriate range of field experience
Experience in facilitating consultative workshops involving a wide range of organizations and participants
Excellent writing and communication skills in English
Ability to design clean and meaningful graphics that support narratives, or direct access to graphic designers able to contribute to the Team’s work

The Evaluation Team will include a Team Leader, who is responsible for the overall conduct of the evaluation in accordance with these ToR, including:

Developing and adjusting the evaluation methodology
Managing the Evaluation Team, ensuring efficient division of tasks between team members, managing conflicts and addressing shortcomings within the team
Representing the Evaluation Team in meetings, e.g., with senior managers at Fund Secretariat and field levels, and the RSRTF Steering Committee
Ensuring the quality and timely delivery of all deliverables

The Team Leader will have no less than 12 years of professional experience in either development, humanitarian affairs, or peacebuilding. The Team Leader will have extensive experience in leading and conducting evaluations and demonstrate strong analytical, communication, and writing skills.

The Evaluation Team will be gender-balanced and consist of South Sudan and/or East Africa-based evaluators. Non-South Sudanese team members may only be considered if they can demonstrate substantial experience working in South Sudan.

Required Skills and Experience

Education

Team members, including the Team Leader, are expected to hold at least a Bachelor’s degree in a field relevant to this evaluation

Experience

The Team Leader will have no less than 12 years of professional experience in either development, humanitarian affairs, or peacebuilding.
The Team Leader will have extensive experience in leading and conducting evaluations and demonstrate strong analytical, communication, and writing skills.
The Evaluation Team will be gender-balanced and consist of South Sudan and/or East Africa-based evaluators. Non-South Sudanese team members may only be considered if they can demonstrate substantial experience working in South Sudan.

Language

Excellent writing and communication skills in English.

Process of evaluation and approval of proposals and payments

The Fund Secretariat will review the submissions and select the winning proposal. The Secretariat might seek additional information and/or ask for revisions of proposals once they have been submitted. The proposals will be assessed according to the following criteria:

Technical proposal (35%):

Evaluation approach and methodology: The proposal presents a specific approach and a variety of suitable and feasible methods for collecting and analysing qualitative and/or quantitative data. The methodology incorporates human rights and gender equality perspectives
Evaluation matrix: The matrix clearly addresses the ToR, relating the main evaluation questions to specific methods, data sources, research subjects (e.g. interviewees), and estimated workload
Work plan: The timeframe and resources indicated in the work plan are realistic and useful for the needs of the evaluation
Motivation and ethics: The proposal reflects familiarity of and clear professional commitment to UNEG evaluation standards and guidance

Evaluation Team (35%):

The Team Leader’s and all Evaluation Team members’ experience and qualifications meet the criteria indicated in the ToR. The team is gender-balanced
Evidence or details of previous similar evaluations demonstrate the Team’s suitability

Financial proposal (30%):

The budget proposed is commensurate with the scope of the evaluation and sufficient for obtaining reliable data for the evaluation in the timeframe indicated
If the applicant(s) is/are employed by an organization/company/institution, and they expect their employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing them to UNDP under a Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant(s) must ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP

All final decisions on funding allocation are made by the Fund Secretariat. The Fund reserves the right to fund any or none of the proposals received. Applicants will be notified in writing of the decision concerning their application. Fee payments will be made upon acceptance by the Fund Secretariat of planned deliverables, based on the following payment schedule:

Draft inception report 20%
Draft evaluation report, one-page summary, and slide deck 40%
Final evaluation report, one-page summary, slide deck, and final presentation 40%

Application procedures
Interested applicants should submit a proposal through this website reflecting these ToR and the specific components described in the proposal assessment criteria in section 9 above. In addition, applicants are asked to annex CVs of Evaluation Team members of maximum 2 pages each, and, where possible, writing samples and/or excerpts from previous evaluations, or information about the scope and nature of these evaluations. The Fund reserves the right to screen out proposals that exceed the stated page limit for CVs. All files must be written in English and submitted in PDF format. Applicants may find it useful to consult the resources in Annex 2 when writing their proposal.

Annexes (click on the hyperlink to access the documents):

Annex 1 - Indicative List of Evaluation Questions

Annex 2 - Background Resources

Annex 3 - IC Contract Template

Annex 4 - IC General Terms and Conditions

Annex 5 - RLA Template

Any request for clarification must be sent by email no later than 17 February 2021 to cpu.bids@undp.org with RSRTF@un.org in copy.

UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

Annex 1: Indicative List of Evaluation Questions
This list is indicative and may be amended or shortened in the inception phase:

Relevance

Main question: To what extent are the Fund’s design, approach, and projects relevant to the operating context?
To what extent are the Fund’s projects relevant to and appropriate for the everyday life of targeted stakeholders and partners in the communities the Fund is serving?
To what extent are the Fund’s approach and projects informed by needs and interests of diverse groups of stakeholders, including local, state, and national-level HDP actors and strategies (such as the South Sudanese National Development Strategy)?
Are there ways the Fund could improve its coordination with local and national actors and strategies to strengthen South Sudanese ownership of funded projects?
Are the expected outcomes and principles that have been set in the Fund’s ToR still relevant to the country context?
Is the Fund’s area-based programming approach valid and working, and how could it be improved?
To what extent are the Fund’s design and projects informed by analyses of the underlying barriers to gender equality and the fulfilment of human rights in the country?
How is the Covid-19 pandemic affecting the Fund and its projects, and how could the Fund and project implementers improve the way they are adapting to the pandemic?

Coherence

Main question: To what extent are the Fund’s approach and activities across the HDP nexus coherent and complimentary, both internally and in relation to other funds and programmes in South Sudan?
To what extent is the Fund effectively working towards common outcomes across the HDP nexus? Are outcomes integrative and SMART?
To what extent has the Fund contributed towards the objectives and priorities of the UNCF?
To what extent are the ‘New Way of Working’ and the Fund’s three principles reflected in its work (‘Increasing local focus; Bridging silos; Promoting partnership’)?
To what extent does the Fund contribute to a ‘One UN’ approach, and how successfully are the Fund Secretariat and Steering Committee promoting coordination between the Fund, project implementers, the UNCT, UNMISS, and wider stakeholders?
To what extent do project implementers and other RSRTF stakeholders coordinate and/or cooperate across HDP silos, for example in Area Reference Groups (ARGs) such as the one to be formed in early 2021?
To what extent are UNMISS’ political engagement and peacekeeping capabilities leveraged by project implementers? How could the usage of strategic UNMISS assets be strengthened?
Is the RSRTF leveraged strategically and in complementarity to other multilateral and/or bilateral funds and programmes with similar objectives in South Sudan?
What other opportunities could the Fund explore to collaborate with other humanitarian, development, or peacebuilding programmes in South Sudan?

Effectiveness

Main question: To what extent are the Fund’s approach and projects effective and reaching their stated objectives?
Are the Fund’s and projects’ theories of change and results frameworks realistic? Do they integrate human rights and gender equality considerations, including potential effects on children and the disabled?
To what extent do the Fund Secretariat and project implementers mainstream human rights and gender in the implementation of their activities?
Are the Fund’s and projects’ activities on track to having their desired effect?
Are monitoring and evaluations systems appropriate at project and Fund levels to measure effectiveness? Is data collection on schedule, and is data disaggregated according to relevant criteria (gender, age, location, etc.)?
Are risks managed appropriately, and is there sufficient oversight and accountability to ensure project effectiveness?

Efficiency

Main question: To what extent are the Fund and its projects operating efficiently?
How efficient are the governance and management processes of the Fund in enabling it to deliver on its objectives, including strategic utilization of resources?
Are the Fund and the projects’ staffing and procedures adequate, efficient, and cost-effective?
Are there sufficient financial and human resources allocated to integrate human rights and gender equality in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Fund’s work?
To what extent does the Fund employ effective disbursement mechanisms and minimize transaction costs compared to other multilateral and bilateral funds in South Sudan?
What are (dis)advantages associated with the Fund’s set-up and approach, compared to funding reconciliation, stabilization and resilience projects bilaterally?
Is the use of Fund resources in line with the corresponding results achieved to date, and are the Fund donors’ value for money expectations being met?
Are there feedback loops in place to ensure that the Fund learns and promotes best practice?

Impact

Main question: To what extent does the Fund make a positive difference in the lives of populations that is serves?
Overall, is the Fund on track to ‘increasingly resolve the destructive drivers of conflict, enabling local communities to become more peaceful and, ultimately, self-reliant’ as per its impact statement?
Are there early signs of real change in the overall quality of life of communities living in project areas, particularly with regard to more peaceful coexistence, access to justice, civic participation, economic resilience, and reduced humanitarian aid dependency?
Are there early signs of real change in gender relations among communities living in project areas, for example with regard to more equal access to and use of resources, decision-making power, division of labour, and destructive gender norms undermining peace efforts?
To what extent is the Fund monitoring unintended effects on any groups that were not adequately considered in the design or implementation of projects?

Sustainability

Main question: How likely are the Fund’s and its projects’ effects to outlast the Fund’s existence?
To what extent are populations in project areas driving the design and implementation of projects, i.e. to what extent are projects locally owned?
Do the Fund and the project designs include an appropriate sustainability and exit strategies? To what extent are these strategies executed?
To what extent do the Fund’s projects foster an enabling environment for sustainable positive change in the daily lives of populations in project areas, particularly with regard to human rights and gender equality? For example, are resources, power, and workload between women and men (re)distributed to ensure a lasting effect of programming?
To what extent do stakeholders have confidence that they will be able to build on the positive changes promoted by the Fund’s projects?

What are the key lessons learned from implementation of the Fund’s and similar projects in South Sudan to improve the design, governance, and operations of the Fund to make its impact sustainable?

Annex 2: Background Resources

About the RSRTF:

South Sudan Reconciliation, Stabilization, and Resilience Trust Fund (2020) “2019 Annual Report”, http://mptf.undp.org/document/download/24328

UNDP Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office Gateway (n.d.) “South Sudan Multi-Partner Trust Fund for Reconciliation, Stabilization, Resilience”, http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/SSR00

About the ‘Triple Nexus’ in South Sudan:

Quack, Martin and Ralf Südhoff (2020) “The Triple Nexus in South Sudan: Learning from Local Opportunities”, Centre for Humanitarian Action, available at: https://www.chaberlin.org/en/publications/triple-nexus-in-south-sudan/ [in particular pp. 16-19 about the RSRTF]

Schmidlin, Nora (2020) “Untying the nexus ‘knot’ in South Sudan”, Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility Blog, https://www.csrf-southsudan.org/blog/untying-the-nexus-knot-in-south-sudan/

Wilkinson, Olivia, Florine de Wolf and Moses Alier (2019) “The Triple Nexus and Local Faith Actors in South Sudan: Findings from Primary Research”, DanChurchAid, https://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TripleNexus_SouthSudan.pdf