Description of pro-poor & anti-corruption monitoring in Uganda

Author(s): Willem Overbeke
Publication date: Wednesday 08 December 2004

Macro context

• Since 90’ies various conducive developments:
–Progressive Constitution (1995)
–GoU has opened up policy debate to stakeholders (researchers, politicians, private sector, NGOs, donors)
–Growing influence of (special) interest groups, CSOs and private sector associations.
–Since 1993 drive towards decentralization and more inclusive local governance.

• Uganda´s poverty reduction strategy:
–1995-1997 PEAP became PRSP in 2001
–Goal: level of income poverty < 10% by 2017 (but 2000-2003 rise from 34%-38%!)
–PEAP/PRSP is designed as a partnership between central and local governments, civil society, the private sectors and donors under the guidance of National Poverty Eradication Steering Cie. (Lead MFPED)
–HIPC I/II: debt relief US$ 90 mln. annually, allocated to Poverty Action Fund (PAF). Donors top PAF up.
–In 2003/4 PAF constitutes 37,1% (i.e. Ush 760 bln/US $434 mln.) of total discretionary budget.
–UPE went from 8% to 23% of total PAF under HIPC
–Of total PAF: 80% is disbursed to local governments.
–PAF+ has come to substitute for normal government social spending. Thus persistent dependency on foreign aid (47% in 2003/4) to support the national budget.
–Poverty Monitoring Network becomes over-institutionalised (i.e. still rather technocratic approach).

• Civil Society prescribed roles in PEAP/PRSP
–To participate in planning and service delivery
–To undertake advocacy and monitoring (for pro-poor policies and vulnerable groups)
–To mobilize additional (donor) resources
–Complementary roles: to provide reports on a. Public expenditures; b. Value for money in public expenditure; c. On poverty dynamics among specific groups; d. Develop community based monitoring systems.

• Ugandan Debt Network, 1996, approx. 60 member NGOs (indigineous and international)
-Research, networking and advocacy initiative on behalf of pro-poor economic policies
-1996-2000 spearhead debt relief campaign under HIPC and built relationship withGoU/MFPED
-Monitoring of debt relief and of implementation of Povert Action Fund (UPE, Water & sanitation, PHC, Rural roads, agricultural extension). Developed in 18 districts: Community Based Monitoring and Evaluation System (CBMES)
-Advocacy on accountability, transparency and RBA lead to anti-corruption focus and support for ACCU on both national and community levels.
-Mobilization activities at community level have involved the establishment of CBMES, PAF/Poverty Monitoring Committees and Anti-corruption campaigns in approx. 18 districts.
- Through PEAP/PRSP/PAF framework, UDN contributes to an expansion of the monitoring and auditing knowledge base in local areas, in partnership with district and regional networks.

• In the Rwenzori Anti-corruption Coalition, Karambi Action for Life Improvement (KALI), is working in Bukonzo County, Kasese, West-Uganda.
- Utmost challenges of KALI: a. Citizens´ participation lacks an institutional framework; b. Lack of rights awarenesss to participate in planning and monitoring of public expenditure.
- CBMES is implemented through Public Expenditure Monitoring Committees and forums in 2/5 sub-counties (10/25 parishes).
- The process for developing monitoring tools revolves around community participation in selecting priority areas of concern, from PAF and district/local sectoral/special budgets.
- Score Cards for selected budget areas are developed (see Annex 4. Sample UPE).
- Main goal: together with PEMC forums and local governments to establish a transparent public information system with data on a. budget allocations; b. criteria for target area/group identification; c. disbursement mechanisms. This to enhance community budget monitoring.

back to article: Participatory Budgeting, Civil Society and the Struggle for Democratic Development