The Politics of Revising the PEAP/PRSP in Uganda By Richard Ssewakiryanga Team Leader Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process Ministry of Finance,

The Politics of Revising the PEAP/PRSP in Uganda

By Richard SsewakiryangaTeam Leader

Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

P.O.Box 8147, Kampala, Uganda Tel: 256 41 236205

E:mail: [email protected]

Presented at the

International Conference on Political Dimensions of Poverty Reduction Mulungushi International Conference Center, Lusaka,

Zambia 9th -11th March 2005

2

Outline

Background to the PEAP Process The PEAP 1997The PEAP/PRSP 2000The PEAP/PRSP 2004Reflections on Political Implication

3

Introduction

Uganda is one of the few countries who first developed a Poverty Eradication Action Plan.

In Uganda, the focus on poverty reduction is traced back to a very specific political process that forced the Government to focus on poverty.

The focus on poverty eradication eventually evolved to become the national goal of the Government and since 1995

4

From Trickling Economic Growth to Poverty Eradication

Early economic reforms in Uganda’s did not address poverty.

The reform process was geared towards stabilising an economy torn apart by war and needed rehabilitation, stabilising the erratic macro economic environment and promoting economic growth

The hope was that benefits would percolate down through increased participation of the poor women and men in the economy

5

Moving Towards Poverty Influential factor that led to a focus on poverty was

the political campaigns for Constituent Assembly elections 1994 and Presidential and Parliamentary elections of May and June 1996

Many people used the slogan, ‘although we sleep peacefully we cannot eat peace!

The political campaigns were seedbeds for a sharper focus on poverty

The anxiety that followed led to a number of events…

In September 1995 President Museveni mobilized Members of Parliament, donors, and Government ministers and took them to Luwero triangle

6

Facing Poverty … In Luwero many died during the war and one of

the first things that Government had done was to put in place funds to rehabilitate and compensate the Luwero war-affected families

The trip was to bring donors and politicians face to face with the state of roads, schools, and dispensaries and the extent of poverty in the countryside

National Task force on Poverty Eradication which included eminent persons from various institutions like the academic, Government ministries, donors, CSO representatives, Trade Union representatives and politicians

7

The Development of PEAP 1997 The taskforce produced the first PEAP and

identified a number of priority programme areas These areas included;

Primary health care Rural feeder roads Primary Education Provision of Safe Water Modernization of Agriculture

8

Revision of the PEAP 1997?

In all Local Governments there were emerging differences in the implementation of the priority areas

Yet funding provided by central Government was uniform

Necessary to refocus some of the issues in the PEAP 1997 so that the Poverty Action Fund could deliver more effectively

In PEAP 1997, the poor had not been consulted the poor

9

The PEAP 2000 This PEAP process in Uganda has been praised

as homegrown by donors The PEAP 2000 set long-term goal of reducing the

incidence of income poverty in Uganda to less than 10% by 2017

Four broad goals (known as pillars) for poverty eradication in Uganda were developed. These pillars are; Pillar 1: Creating an enabling environment for sustainable

economic growth and transformation Pillar 2: Promotion good governance and security Pillar 3: Directly increasing the ability of the poor to raise

their incomes Pillar 4: Directly improving the quality of life of the poor

10

The PEAP 2000 At GoU’s request, it was agreed PEAP could serve

as PRSP and this coincided with the planned revision of the PEAP

The revision process was extremely quick, which had been initiated in December 1999

A technical team was established in the Ministry of Finance adopted an open style

CSOs constituted a Task Force with encouragement from MFPED and donors, and organised Local Government consultations

Draft PEAP was presented at a Consultative Group meeting in March 2000 and (a summary of the revised PEAP) was endorsed by the Executive Boards of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in May 2000

11

The PEAP 2000This pace of revision was dictated by the fact

that Uganda was already thinking of conducting a revision which coincided with a PRSP process

The process therefore just took over six monthsWorld Bank copied the PRSP process idea

from the PEAP formulation process and tried to replicate it in the original PRSP Participation Toolkit

This could be one of the reasons that other countries felt that PRSP process was rushed

12

The PEAP 2000 With the approval of the PEAP as the PRSP,

Uganda was also therefore able to access debt relief under the HIPCII.

Uganda became the first beneficiary of the Enhanced HIPC Debt Relief Initiative and obtained 46 million dollars in debt relief for the financial year 2001/2.

The relief increased by 55 million US dollars in each of the subsequent financial years

The combined HIPCI and HIPCII are generating savings of approximately $90 million annually which would have been paid out as debt repayment

13

Achievement of the PEAP 2000

The encouraging progress in economic growth

High enrolment rates of primary school-age going children

Encouraging gender parity in primary education

Continued reduction in HIV/AIDS prevalence

Increasing safe water coverage

14

Three key reasons for revising New global and domestic developments of

significant implication to PEAP 2000 (MDGs, Decentralisation)

Need for Government and other stakeholders to review progress in the attainment of PEAP objectives and targets

Need to give Government an opportunity to address emerging issues and challenges in setting out the policies and programmes that will be followed over the medium term in pursuit of poverty eradication

15

Emerging Challenges of PEAP 2000

Slow and inequitable growth Limited structural transformation Slow progress in attainment of some social indicators Insecurity in the North Coordination, sequencing and prioritisation of reforms for

growth and poverty reduction Need to strengthen and further integrate the recent

budget reforms Institutionalization of consultative processes Playing a more active role in regional blocs Need to undertake long-term costings of the PEAP Review of PEAP targets and indicators in light of new

local and international developments

16

CompositionHead/CS (Chair)PS/ST MFPEDPS’ of lead sector MinistriesChair NGO ForumChair ULAA/AADonor RepPSF

Steering Committee

SecretariatEDP&RD

Technical Committee

Composition:D/EA (Chair)Lead consultantPillar Coordinators (Tech aids)Lead CCI Team CoordinatorDonor Reps2 CAOsSec. General: ULAANGO Forum

Pillar 2:Lead Consultant

Pillar 3:Lead Consultant

Pillar 4:Lead Consultant

Pillar 1:Lead Consultant

COMPOSITION:MFPEDBoUDonor RepsPSFCCI TeamEPRCCSO RepsMTTIMerged UIA, UTB &UEPBOthers

COMPOSITION:JLO SWGSecurity SWGPA SWGGov’t Watch DogsCCI TeamHuman rights bodiesResearch InstitutionsOther

COMPOSITION:Private SWGAgriculture SWGCSO RepsCCI TeamRoad SWGEnergy SWGOther

COMPOSITION:Health SWGEduc. SWGWSS SWGPopulation SecCSO RepsCCSULAA RepOther

17

The PEAP 2004 Revision Process

Process of revising the PEAP 2000 started in November 2002 with developing of the Poverty Status Report (PSR 2003)

The PSR is a document that MoFPED, produced every two years and presents evidence on progress towards the targets set out in the PEAP

A related process was the finalisation of the PPA2 in 60 villages in 12 districts, this brought PPA districts to 21 out of 56 in Uganda

The UPPAP process also provided the qualitative analysis of poverty in Uganda and poor people perspectives on poverty

18

The PEAP 2004

To ensure that MoFPED was on top of the PEAP revision process a PEAP Secretariat was established

A PEAP Revision Guide was developedProcess formally launched mid-July 2003

with 1st stakeholder workshopFive consultation strands was

designed……

19

The PEAP 2004

Central Government-led consultations through Budget Sector Working Groups (SWGs)

Local Government-led consultations Private Sector-led consultations Civil Society-led consultations Cross cutting issues team

20

The PEAP 2004 All the written reports were submitted to the PEAP

Secretariat The PEAP secretariat held weekly meeting during the

drafting process The PEAP Secretariat had originally developed a

timeframe for the PEAP to be launched at the end of 2003

But the ambitious timeframe did keep sectors on their toes and helped to get most of the inputs in on time

But it has taken a year since the PEAP revision process was launched and a year and a half after consultations for the PSR 2003 for the PEAP 2004 to be finalised

21

The PEAP 2004 The PEAP Secretariat had a team of technical

officers drafting each pillar and one long-term consultant worked on consolidation of the pillars write-up into one document

The documents were then discussed in the PEAP secretariat weekly meetings as it was developed

This process was also slow one because sometimes consensus took time

Stakeholders gave comments on the draft Some ministries were protesting that PEAP had

‘over-summarised’ their submissions Comments were therefore very varied

22

The PEAP 2004The revised PEAP now has 5 pillars and

they include; Pillar 1: Economic Management Pillar 2: Production, competitiveness and

incomes Pillar 3: Security, conflict-resolution and

disaster-management Pillar 4: Good Governance Pillar 5: Human Development

23

PEAP 2004 Policy Thrust

More focus on income poverty Focus on agricultural livelihoods Improving Human Development indicators

especially Infant Mortality and Fertility Focus on efficiency in public sector

spending Improving the governance environment Upholding good governance principles

24

Reflections on the Politics

The Birth of the PEAP by the Political Processes in Uganda ….will the PEAP survive changing political landscape?

The Absence of Populist Interventions ..in 1997 UPE…2000 abolition of cost sharing …2004 cutting Govt expenditure…not very popular

The Birth of the National Planning Authority and the Survival of the PEAP

Political Decentralization, Declining Local Revenues and the PEAP

25

26

27

Reflections on the Politics

The PAF, Debt Volumes and the PEAP Donors were happy with PAF it showed

government investing in poverty eradication +ve element of the PAF programmes - poverty

discourse became part of the bureaucratic discourse of service delivery

Monitoring is embedded with larger policy processes that are laced with political power

The raising volumes of debt in during the debt reduction process ..see graph..

28

Sources of PAF funds 1997/8 to 2002/3

29

Reflections on the Politics contd..

Absence of a New Paradigm Shift – are we just sailing the same boat…what are the alternatives …new Finance Minister in Uganda has suggested more interventionist approach…where are the CSO alternatives

Donor Politics and the PEAP Process ..are donors ready to listen to paradigm shifts ….

What is the reality for a country which is donor driven countries with ‘donor citizen participating in the management of poverty reduction ….any possibilities for exit?

30

Reflections on the Politics contd.. The Unresolved debates: Stagnation in growth,

Raising Poverty and Raising inequality….. Growth has slowed over the past five years Average growth rate between 1998/99 and 2002/03 was

6.1% per annum, as compared to 6.8% between 1990/91 and 1997/98

Higher average growth rate between 1990/91 and 1997/98 was boosted by three years of exceptionally strong growth in the early 1990s

…. income poverty increased from 34% to 38% between 2000 and 2003

Inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient rose markedly from 0.39 to 0.43

What went wrong….?

31

Uganda’s Real GDP Growth at Market Prices 1990/91 – 2002/03

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

32

Poverty Trend 1997-2003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% o

f peo

ple

livin

g in

pov

erty

National Rural Urban Central Eastern Northern Western

92/93 96/97 99/00 02/03

33

Monitoring of the PEAP The PEAP emphasizes the critical role of effective

and efficient M&E of policy, public sector reform and in obtaining cost-effectiveness in public service delivery

The National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy keeps stakeholders (the legislature, development partners, and civil society organisations and the public at large) informed about progress being made in implementing the PEAP

The PEAP Policy Matrix is the instrument used and it wants agreement has been reached that there should be one monitoring matrix – for WB, other donors and the Govt

Efficacy remains to be seen……..

34

Conclusion Uganda’s relative success, stakeholders have tended to

advocate replication the PEAP/PRSP model without taking sufficient account of some of the political preconditions

Uganda’s openness to new ideas and policies, and its “technical” partnership with donors, would probably not have been possible in the absence of a domestic political project around poverty reduction and a core of technically competent and relatively powerful government officials

Both helped in setting priorities for international assistance and the policy dialogue

Uganda is also unique because its postwar government based its legitimacy not just on security but also poverty reduction as a tool for “nation building,” giving officials enough autonomy to deliver on the policy