the politics of revising the peap/prsp in uganda by richard ssewakiryanga team leader uganda...
TRANSCRIPT
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