Previous| Next | Content| Main |Home 

Towards MDGs Localization and Poverty Reduction: The Case of Uganda

There has been skewed emphasis on the input, process and output stages while little is done at the outcome and impact stages. Hence, the gap regarding performance measurement of decentralized interventions. This is why there is need for a thorough implementation of a comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The combined efforts of the performance monitoring institutions need to be revitalized. It is however crucial to ensure a minimum measure of transparency and accountability as a panacea for the achievement of MDGs and Poverty Reduction, and in order to determine the effectiveness of decentralized service delivery.

In 2000, 189 Governments at the United Millennium Declaration in New York committed themselves to do all they could to eradicate poverty, promote human dignity and equality, and to achieve peace, democracy and environmental stability. Based on the Millennium Declaration, the Millennium Development Goals commit countries to strive to achieve the stipulated eight targets by 2015. Uganda already has taken steps in localizing government policy by the institutional policy of decentralization which is the transfer of central government roles of public service delivery to districts and local governments.

The objective of this paper is therefore to analyse the emphasis to localize the implementation of government programmes towards the attainment of the MDG targets. Section one gives an overview of Uganda’s progress towards the attainment of the MDGs. Section two explains the roles played by autonomous local governments in achieving MDG targets. The role of the local communities in planning and implementation of interventions is also elaborated. Section three analyses the handicaps in project implementations and recommends strategies and approaches needed for an effective and faster approach towards achieving the MDG targets.

Goal 1 sets the target to halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than 1 US dollar a day. In Uganda, 38% of the population live below the poverty line. Uganda faces the risk of a significant setback in its long-term endeavour to eradicate poverty, but it is being tackled through the implementation of the new PEAP. Goal 2 is to ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere will be able to complete a full course of primary education. The Universal Primary Education Uganda was implemented in 1997 and net enrolment rate more than tripled from 2.3 million children in 1996 to 7.5 million in 2004. Uganda is also on track to ensure women empowerment, with more representation of women at all levels of government, in comparison with other developing counties.

Goal 4 stipulates the need to substantially reduce child mortality to 68 per 1,000 live births, and under-five infant mortality rate to 103. Despite tremendous improvements in the health service provision, Uganda’s Infant Mortality rate has stagnated at a high 88 per 1,000, and Under 5 mortality rate was 152 per thousand in 2001. Uganda has faced enormous challenges in tackling maternal mortality that has stagnated at a figure of 505/100,000 even with improvements in the health sector. Goal 6 is where Uganda has been remarkable. Through preventive measures, Uganda reduced the HIV/AIDS rate from 14% in the early 1990s to 7% to date, making the country the global leader in reducing HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. Malaria remains the leading cause of morbidity in Uganda, accounting for 52% of OPD in 2003. In regard with Goal 7, the depletion of forests and wetlands has had adverse effects on the sustainability of Uganda’s socio-economic development. Promising is the fact that the country has intensified her participation in the East African Community’s revival and is also a member of the Common Market for East and Southern African states (COMESA), the African Union Development Forum, New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and the United Nations.

The United Millennium Declaration was a highly profiled document that involved 189 Heads of Government, including Uganda’s. It was out of this declaration that the Millennium Development Goals were set as Poverty Alleviation Programme of Action in 2000. However, the goals have not been understood by various nations, and hence the need for translating these goals into programmes for local understanding and implementation. There is therefore the need for localization of the MDGs so that the local person is not a passive recipient but a partner in implementation of the programmes. In a bid to increase efficiency in service delivery, districts have been structured under the decentralization policy to execute policy implementation directed to poverty alleviation. It is critical for Local Governments to embrace the MDGs, and in so doing, drive the entire population to achieve them.

Decentralization refers to the process of the extensive transfer of political, administrative and financial functions and powers from the central government to local government and its agencies. It is an administrative programme aimed at transforming political and administrative institutions to the capability of the public and towards empowerment of the local people. The policy does this in order to achieve improved accountability and effectiveness, and to promote people’s feeling of ownership of programmes and projects executed in their districts. (Decentralization Secretariat 1993). In 1949, the colonial regimes enacted an ordinance to provide for District Local Councils, to make by-laws, and to levy and collect taxes on behalf of the central government. In 1967, the Local Government Act was enacted, legitimizing the system and bringing all areas under control, and the Minister responsible was given extensive powers to control the operations of the Local District Councils. In 1986, the NRM instituted a system of Resistance Councils (RCs) now renamed Local Councils (LCs). The Local Government policy was consolidated in Chapter 11 of the Uganda Constitution of 1995. In 1997, the Local Government Act, a comprehensive and integrated law encompassing all aspects of local government, including its composition and operations, was enacted. This became the platform for Uganda’s decentralization policy today.

The Lower Local Government Council is a political and legal unit for self-government and service delivery and should have corporate seal, which should be registered with the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (Section 7). According to Section 31 of the Local Government Act, the Council shall within its area of jurisdiction:

Exercise all political and executive powers and functions;

Provide services as it deems fit, except functions, powers and services reserved for the Central Government;

Protect the Constitution and other laws of Uganda;

Ensure the observance of human rights;

Promote democratic governance; and

Implement and comply with Government policy.

These offices, like the District Planning Unit, the Community Development Office, and the Lands and Production Offices, are in reality the role bearers of Government policy implementation. By law, the following are the general functions and services that have to be devolved by a district council to Lower Local Government Councils. The Government through the decentralization policy articulated the implementation of programmes that are in line with the PEAP, which is channelled to lead to the achievement of the MDG targets. Under the policy, Districts are to perform the following tasks:

Monitoring nursery, primary, post-primary and adult education while ensuring community hygiene;

Both the National Environmental Statute of 1995 and the Local Government Act of 1997 provide for the devolution of environmental management activities to the districts and lower districts, thus controlling vermin and maintaining community infrastructure, ensuring land occupants keep adjacent roads free of vegetation to protect the environment;

Ensuring food security and agricultural and related field services; control of soil erosion and protection of local wetlands; prevention or control of forest and bush fires, as well as controlling local hunting and fishing;

Managing markets and revenue collection; controlling trading centres, markets and landing sites, and establishing, controlling and managing recreation grounds;

Constructing and maintaining works, enforcing set standards of buildings, refuse disposal; controlling and managing ferries, etc.;

Regulating local print media and information services; and

Regulating community development schemes in a manner approved by the District council; regulating social, cultural and sporting activities and clubs.

Districts’ budgets are reviewed by the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development, which makes propositions on areas the districts need to concentrate their resources. The Ministry ensures that budget allocations are made in accordance with the national budget strategies and the Local Government Programme. NGO, community and central government interfaces need to be assessed in order to determine service delivery effectiveness and sustainability. In this case, the delivery of health and water services at local levels is an example. Presently, Uganda has an Infant Mortality Rate of 88, Total Fertility Rate of 7, and a Doctor-Patient ratio of 1:21,053. Public health staff stands between 8,000 - 191,751, and there is a persistently high 808 deaths of on-birth children out of 100,000 live births. Below is an illustration of the obstetric causes of maternal morality.

Source: Adapted from Uganda Country Common Assessment Report, UNDP 2004

With regard to water delivery, 60% of the urban and 27% of the rural populations have access to safe water within less than 1.5 kilometers. Sanitation coverage is just over 50% for urban and 30% for rural areas. The failure of official administrative instruments to deliver services to the populace in Uganda demonstrates the absence of good governance, among other issues. This explains why the role of NGOs and local authorities have been instrumental in filling up the gaps.

Knowledge base on MDG targets by local governments

Mwesigwa (1987) noted that it is difficult to incorporate community participation in service delivery when the setting does not have a supportive social tradition. Decentralization in some districts has not yet yielded fruit. Community members know the existence of 65% revenue retention. The issue of the recipient masses looks that they are either ignorant of their rights to determine their basket of social needs or are not consulted in drawing the district budget allocations. We cannot say that the local population is ignorant of the need for local governments to give primary education, amenities like in health, roads, and empowerment of women, but we can rather measure the extent to which their resources match their reception. Achievement of the MDG targets is a desire of every district, works on projects towards their attainment. The central Government is aware of the MDG targets and therefore needs to have a comprehensive plan that encompasses all district plans towards implementing feasible projects to the eventual attainment of these targets.

There are two forms of decentralization: de-concentration, and devolution of powers. The former refers to giving out minimum powers while the latter refers to giving out significant powers to lower administrative units. Since 1993, the decentralization policy in Uganda has devolved powers and responsibilities for decision making, planning, resource mobilization and management, and service delivery to LGs. This has therefore ushered in the popular participation of the people in the formulation of basic programmes at the local level.

Through their representatives at various councils, particularly at sub-county and District councils which have the statutory mandates to raise and spend public resources, the people are involved in deciding and planning development interventions as well as ensuring efficient service delivery and accountability. Service delivery is viewed from four broad dimensions: a) the actual investment or service delivery units; b) the quality of the services; c) the use of those services; and d) the human resource associated with the service units or investments in place. Considerable evidence shows improved service delivery, when compared to the periods before and after implementation of the decentralization policy. However, some of the services, like in health, are not used. In addition, there is widespread acknowledgement that while services have indeed increased significantly, the quality is still lacking. Corruption, unavailability of manpower to man the projects, and the absence of technical logistics have been identified as major shortfalls as will be discussed in the subsequent section.

Uganda has an impressive record of policy formulation and documentation, with numerous and well developed policy documents in place. However, local capacity constraints, bureaucracy and corruption, among other factors, slow implementation and as a result little outcomes are felt by the grassroots, hence the shape of the ‘’man’’ with a big head (policy), lean shoulders (implementation) and diminishing legs (impact on the ground). Figure 2 illustrates the problem of policy implementation that is seen not only in Uganda, but in most of the developing countries.

Fig. 2. A symbolic presentation of policy implementation problem

2.5 Causative Factors

The major problem in policy implementation is comprised of lack of capacity in terms of appropriate skills mix for efficient execution of planned activities and lack of resources for carrying out accountability in public service delivery. While it is apparent that many planned activities lack adequate financial resources, it is increasingly clear that corruption and lack of accountability are increasingly curtailing service delivery.

The purpose of decentralizing service delivery was essentially to improve efficiency and effectiveness, but it has frequently been reported that officials in the Local Governments have sometimes grossly abused the powers devolved to them. As Tukahebwa (1997) documents, the district councillors in the Local Government structures have allocated themselves tenders! This is a serious conflict of interest which not only undermines the very essence of decentralization but has actually led to failure to meet targets as enshrined in the MDGs. In the water, education and health sectors in Uganda, there is evidence of shoddy work resulting from award of tenders to incompetent firms (Tukahebwa 1997). The problem of tendering by the local governments has drawn such outcry from the public, leading to questioning the capacity of district local governments to manage the entire process of decentralization. There are arguments in favour of re-centralizing some of the powers initially devolved to district local governments. Other argue against the retake over of power of the former district local governments. However, it is the contention of the author that two wrongs cannot make one right. The local governments must either “make-or-break”. There is no short cut to building their reputation regarding accountability and meritocracy, lest they lose their hard-won rights to plan and implement their plans.

In an effort to inculcate the virtues of accountability in the decentralized structures, there is need to develop implementation structures based on a multi-criteria model. The suggested model in Figure 3 is built on a robust framework which broadens the lean shoulders and strengthens the diminishing legs indicated in Figure 2.

In ascertaining appropriate policy approach and strategy, we ought to realize an increment in all sectors: economic efficiency (net monetary benefits), social equity (service to the poor), and sustenance with due effects on welfare. But the pertinent question is how the options should be assessed and choices made? The operation of the multi-criteria policy model for poverty reduction is indicated below.

How are policy options assessed? The innermost triangle in green describes the existing policy approaches against implementation inefficiency in which economic efficiency is moderate, social equity low, and overall goal attainment is worst. Next, the middle triangle in red indicates a ‘win-win’ future option in which all three indices improve, as could occur with a new policy approach of performance measurement that is sensitive in all directions with a particular soft spot for the poor. The economic gains from policy initiatives would include: more meaningful access to economic opportunities such as availability of jobs and improved productivity; social gains from helping the disadvantaged; and increased incomes resulting in reduced poverty and improved overall quality of life. The decentralization process would achieve efficiency checks with these kind of criteria.

Fig. 3. Multi-Criteria Policy Model for Decentralization

How are policy options assessed? The innermost triangle in green describes the existing policy approaches against implementation inefficiency in which economic efficiency is moderate, social equity low, and overall goal attainment is worst. Next, the middle triangle in red indicates a ‘win-win’ future option in which all three indices improve, as could occur with a new policy approach of performance measurement that is sensitive in all directions with a particular soft spot for the poor. The economic gains from policy initiatives would include: more meaningful access to economic opportunities such as availability of jobs and improved productivity; social gains from helping the disadvantaged; and increased incomes resulting in reduced poverty and improved overall quality of life. The decentralization process would achieve efficiency checks with these kind of criteria.

Having analyzed the problems of decentralization implementation facing local governments, its critical that local needs get priority if efficient delivery of services is to be attained. To monitor the effectiveness of the multi-criteria model, decentralization needs a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation strategy to effectively ensure the implementation of poverty alleviation programmes.

The Joint Sector Review is an annual inter-sectoral evaluation of sectors aimed to appraise their performance and identify gaps to be filled in subsequent financial years.

By way of example, the Health, Education, and the Water and Sanitation sectors have implemented successful M&E strategies. The Water and Sanitation Sector (WSS) has organized the annual review that has eight golden indicators against which performance is measured. These include: access to water; equity in water facility distribution; value for money; quality of water and sanitation facilities; availability of water for production; sanitation and hygiene (MWLE 2004). This kind of monitoring and evaluation approaches are lacking in other sectors, worst of which is the Agricultural sector where it would be crucially required. Even in these sectors where the JSRs take place, the local governments are not adequately represented. In many cases, the local government districts are not even aware of the performance indicators used at the Central government level.

The explanation of the policy implementation gap in the model can be reversed so that there is a maiden approach that ensures proper project implementation. This can be possible if government effectively implements the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES). But the structures for monitoring and evaluation are weak at the district level. This makes it difficult to capture the activities of different districts and other stakeholders in comprehensive reporting format. NIMES is intended to provide a framework for harmonizing the implementation of the entire PEAP, and in so doing tarry Uganda’s evaluation of the strides it is making towards the achievement of the MDG targets. At district level, the activities of different stakeholders are not captured in a comprehensive fashion and reported in the District reports to line ministries. This will enable the Local Government Ministry to obtain a broader view of how development programmes are being implemented within the overall district plans, and therefore, give relevant guidelines to districts.

There is a realization that the current educational curriculum has bent the educational system to produce elite but unskilled citizens. Local elite may be less “accessible” than central government. The country needs a human resource base not only that can run her administrative positions but also technocrats that can advise, direct and implement development projects. These needs need a purposeful transformation of the education curriculum to ensure pupils and students are trained in a competitive skills mix.

Policies are a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that have been agreed upon by a group of people, a business organization, a government or a political party (Cambridge International Dictionary). Countries with global power status have developed a national vision and an attitude of Nationalism. There should always be severe punitive measures for the corrupt, and robust performance measurement schemes for the public service by the state institutions. Having this spirit where there’s galvanized population mentalities and attitudes towards national development is what will take Uganda to step further and faster towards achieving sustainable national development. The Ministry of Ethics and Integrity and the office of the IGG should actively perform their functions, and so should the Anti Corruption units, like the CID, DPP and other organs.

Country Status Report. 2004. The Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. Kampala, February.

Decentralization Secretariat. 1993. Proceedings of the conference on Decentralization in Uganda. Kampala.

DENIVA. 2000. NGOs, local governance councils and decentralization in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. 2004. Performance, monitoring and evaluation report for July 2003-June 2004. Entebbe, Uganda.

Ministry of Education and Sports. 2003. Uganda education statistical abstract.

Ministry of Local Government. 2004. Joint annual review of decentralization. Kampala, Uganda.

Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment. 2004. Performance measurement framework report. Kampala.

Mwesigwa. 1987. Community participation in social service delivery. Makerere Institute of Social Research, Kampala.

Tukahebwa. 1997. The impact of decentralization on service delivery. Makerere University, Kampala.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 2002. Labour-survey: Uganda National Household survey. Entebbe, Uganda.

____. 2002. Provisional census results. Entebbe, Uganda.

____. 2002. Statistical abstract. Entebbe, Uganda.

____. 2002. Uganda national household survey. Entebbe, Uganda.

UN. 1994. International Conference on Population and Development.

UNDP. 2003. Common country assessment. Kampala, Uganda.

______. 2003. Millennium Development Goals progress report. Kampala Uganda.

Analysis of Uganda’s progress towards achieving the MDG targets through the PEAP

Senior Lecturer, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda, e-mail: reevconsult@infocom.co.ug

Back| Next | Content| Top| Main