1. EXPANDING SOCIAL PROTECTION IN UGANDA A Paper Presented to an international symposium; Social Protection in Southern Africa: New Opportunities for Social Development Date: 24th -25th, May 2011: Presented by: Murungi Irene- Uganda Designation: Programme Officer Address: National Association of Women Organisations in Uganda (NAWOU) Plot 1 Perryman’s Gardens Bakuli–Old Kampala- Kampala, P.O. Box 1663, Kampala, Uganda (East Africa), Tel: +256-41258463/+256-712-638363 Fax number: +256-41-345293

2. Uganda has over two decades, made some progress in reducing poverty from 56% in 1992 to 31% in 2006; but poverty is still an overriding challenge. The social protection programme is challenged by nature of the community where 31% of population live below the official poverty line (8.4 million people surviving on less than 1 dollar a day; more than 75% of Ugandans live on less than 2 dollars a day. Introduction

3. Introduction contn’d 9% of people in the rural areas eat one meal a day and 20% of the children below five years are underweight). It is estimated that about 26 out of 100 Ugandans, out of a population of 33 million, yet about 10 million live in chronic poverty. These include; elderly persons, people with disabilities, and women, widows, street children, orphans and other disadvantaged children.

4. Why Social Protection and why now? Due to Uganda’s chronic mass based poverty and large social deficits, there is need for active social protection systems that reduce poverty. Systems that contribute to asset redistribution and measures to address the structural bases of poverty. Social protection mechanisms in Uganda include cash transfers to vulnerable groups; pensions for the elderly, grants to children headed households and people with disabilities. These mechanisms include access to nutrition, health care, housing and education. The ultimate development objective of a 5-year Programme is to embed a national social protection system that benefits Uganda’s poorest as a core element of the country’s national policy, planning and budgeting process.

5. Why now? The programme is aimed at reducing chronic poverty and improving life chances for the poor in Uganda. It will complement other poverty reduction policies and programmes; most poor people are excluded in these programmes and thus SP comes in to enable the poor access basic needs and mainstream development.

6. Goal of SP Goal: To protect vulnerable groups from deprivation and livelihood risks by initiating policies and promoting development programmes that protect the rights of vulnerable groups.

7. Expected outcomes of SP These include: Empowered communities able to contribute to socio-economic growth and development. Increased employment opportunities for vulnerable groups. Enhanced potential of vulnerable groups to generate wealth. Improved capacity to tap local resources, indigenous skills and knowledge; Increased access to rural financial services by the poor.

8. Outcomes contn’d Reduced inequality, as a result of improvement in access to economic opportunities by the poor. Strengthening social networks of vulnerable groups at community levels. Help reduce extreme poverty and hunger. Improve the SOL of orphans and vulnerable children in communities.

9. Challenges in expanding social protection in Uganda Political interference Inadequate information sharing and linkages of services to social protection A country with no IDs for the population; registration of births and deaths in not well managed An informal criteria of selection of beneficiaries, may leave out most deserving persons. Failure to mobilize adequate resources to sustain the programme after the 5 years defined. There is limited awareness of SP and its contribution to Uganda. Lack of enough researched information in planning and programming for older persons.

10. Questions arising from the intervention How has state and CSOs popularized the policy and sensitized community and public? How can CSOs handle the challenge of analysing policies and advocating for change without being considered politically divergent? Programme financially sustainability after 5 years (2011-16)? Will the plague of corruption in Uganda’s institutions let the SP programme go free?

11. To what extent is public involved in district planning processes, monitoring and tracking the policy? The programme was ushered in during Uganda’s transitional period (strategy of soliciting for votes in the guise of trying to benefit the poor)? What of political influence, starts and ends with Uganda’s presidential and parliamentary term (2011-16)? How will men and women benefit from the programme? Questions arising contn’d

12. Increased awareness about benefits encourage populations to contribute to resources mobilization for SP. Stakeholders’ significant contributions to planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation processes. Integration of priorities at national planning frameworks e.g. PEAP, PRSPs and MDGs are appropriate to ensure funding of such priorities through national budgets. Strategies for ensuring effective Social Protection

13. Strategies contn’d Mobilising resources for SP through national policies which widens the tax base and collected revenue equitably allocated, used and monitored for accountability. Increasing formal and informal employment opportunities for the population has potential of increasing revenue collection; need for minimum wage for employees for whatever category and efficiency and effectiveness of national revenue institution. Anti corruption campaigns and actions by all stakeholders in whistle-blowing, monitoring, resources utilization.

14. Recommendations Review existing policies and programmes against strategic objectives, so as to do away with any hindrances. Uganda needs to adopt a ‘rights based’ pro-poor social protection agenda, especially in reviewing and revising the official understanding and definition of social protection. There is need for prioritizing the most vulnerable and at risk especially children, women, elderly and PWDs. Making adequate arrangements to mobilize resources so as to ensure financial sustainability of the programme.

15. Recommendations contn’d Developing mechanisms of prioritizing the rights of the poor; agreeing to values and principles against which objectives are benchmarked. Capacity building of communities in participatory planning in local governance and proper resource monitoring and tracking. CSOs like National Association of Women Organizations in Uganda (NAWOU) aims at participating in monitoring and evaluating the programme at the Ministry and grass root levels; advocating for policy analysis and reform to ensure sustainability; training and awareness creation about the programme and ensuring that it benefits men and women.

16. Conclusion Social protection has come in at the right time, however, it is vital to address the challenges faced as discussed, so as to realise the efficiency of the programme.

17. Thank you for listening. GOD BLESS YOU!!!