1 / 34

The Politics of Revising the PEAP/PRSP in Uganda

The Politics of Revising the PEAP/PRSP in Uganda. By Richard Ssewakiryanga Team 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: Richard.Ssewakiryanga@finance.go.ug

hunter
Download Presentation

The Politics of Revising the PEAP/PRSP in Uganda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Politics of Revising the PEAP/PRSP in Uganda By Richard Ssewakiryanga Team 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: Richard.Ssewakiryanga@finance.go.ug 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 1997 • The PEAP/PRSP 2000 • The PEAP/PRSP 2004 • Reflections 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 2000 • This 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 months • World 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. 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 Emerging Challenges of PEAP 2000

  16. 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

  17. 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 developed • Process formally launched mid-July 2003 with 1st stakeholder workshop • Five consultation strands was designed……

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. The PEAP 2004 • The 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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..

  25. Sources of PAF funds 1997/8 to 2002/3

  26. 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?

  27. 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….?

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

  29. Poverty Trend 1997-2003

  30. 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……..

  31. 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

More Related