Resource mobilization and utilization

Although some external resources are mobilized through development partners and other international organizations, it appears that the country lacks the capacity to raise domestic funds to support TVET delivery. Bilateral and multilateral partnerships in TVET in South Sudan take the form of direct funding to the government and NGOs for building learning and training infrastructure, providing in-service training for teachers/instructors or scholarships for trainers to study abroad. Some of the development partners active in South Sudan are the European Union, JICA, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the UK Department for International Development (DfID), UNIDO, UNESCO, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and UNICEF. A recent development in donor support and funding in South Sudan is the creation of a country-based development partners’ platform where different agencies share information on their interventions in the country. A good example of collaboration among development partners is the planned pooling of resources by UNESCO, DfID, UNICEF and the European Union to support TVET curriculum development and provision in the country.

In all the discussions held with officials of the various ministries, head teachers, teachers and instructors, it became apparent that government funding alone was inadequate and that there was need to diversify the funding sources.

In many countries, such as Mauritius, Côte d’Ivoire, Benin and to a lesser extent Kenya, measures have been introduced to attract additional funding from the private sector, mainly through national training funds, often based on payroll levies. The funds are used specifically for on-the-job training and continuing training. However, it is still open to question whether these training levies are effective and whether enough funds can be generated through payroll levies, since many countries have a narrow tax base. Furthermore, in some countries (such as Côte d’Ivoire), issues of transparency and accountability concerning the use and management of the funds so collected has generated tension between the government and sections of the private sector, which perceive training levies as an additional tax burden (ADEA, 2012). A cursory assessment of the industrial environment in South Sudan does not appear to support the introduction of such training levies. Indeed, one prominent private sector player, interviewed on the issue of sustainable financing of TVET in the country and the possibility of payment of training levies by industry, confessed that companies and businesses in South Sudan may not yet be ready to support and contribute to such a fund. However, a training fund might have several sources of funding, and in the short term, even without private sector immediate contribution, it can foster participation in steering a TVET system of major stakeholders, particularly employers. Box 3 provides international lessons learned regarding key conditions for training fund success.

Box 3: Key Conditions for Training Fund Success

Key condition Justification

Security of income Ensure adequate, sustainable and stable volume of training fund income

Autonomy and control Secure decision-making autonomy of management board and its control over budget allocations

Stakeholder ownership Foster ownership through substantial board representation of major stakeholders, particularly employer groups, where training levies are in place

Activities (and disbursements) for national training

needs only Ensure targeting of training fund policies and disbursements according to defined national training needs and avoidance of extraneous activities

Avoidance of training provider role Limit subsidies and preferential treatment to training centres if run (and financed) by a training fund lest they distort training markets and inhibit movement toward an open, competitive training system

Decision-making transparency Keep decision-making open and make sure the basis for fund allocation is known and understood

Source: Ziderman (2002, p. 46).

The government of South Sudan is in a process of creating a legal environment that is amenable to a transparent, equitable and sustainable petroleum industry. On 17 July 2013 the Legislative Assembly passed, and pending review and approval from the Council of States will soon enact, the newest addition to the ongoing reform process, the Petroleum Revenue Management Act (PRMA) (2012). The PRMA establishes a formalized structure for distribution of petroleum revenues to immediate budgetary needs, savings and revenue stabilization, and direct transfers to petroleum-producing states and affected communities. It sets a high bar for reporting requirements for both the government and oil companies, with the overarching principle of transparent and accountable management. As it stands, the PRMA has the potential to be a game changer for South Sudan, avoiding capital flight and unstable public expenditures while ensuring that long-ignored communities in the oil-producing regions see direct benefit from the petroleum sector. In this context, the government should consider allocating a reasonable percentage of the country’s oil revenue to development of the TVET sector.

4.3 Conclusion

There is a need to design and implement a sustainable financing mechanism for TVET. In view of the high incidence of poverty in the country and the poor prospect of mobilizing training levy contributions from a currently weak industrial private sector, the government alternative could be to consider allocating a reasonable percentage of the country’s oil revenue to development of the TVET sector. Enacting a policy encouraging income-generating self-sustainable training centres focusing on agricultural activities as an example could be a quick win for a short to medium-term revival of some of the centres.