1. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 1 PRS in Decentralized Contexts: Uganda Case Study Kenneth Odero

2. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 2 Introduction Uganda has pursued a Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) since 1997 –Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) [’97] –Poverty Action Fund (PAF) [1998] –PEAP  PRSP [2000] Political and economic reforms beginning 1986 –The 1987 Resistance Council Statute –The 1995 Constitution –Local Government Act of 1997

3. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 3 Decentralization trends Shifting responsibility from central to local government Capacity building Reforming central and local government public expenditure management processes: –Planning/budgeting –Financial management –Public procurement –Monitoring & evaluation

4. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 4 Linkages in planning processes across levels of Government Overarching role of the PEAP/PRSP Fiscal Decentralization Strategy (FDS) BFPs Con stitu tion DDP s PRSP MTE F LGA PS R FDS PAF

5. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 5

6. 6 The relationship between budgeting and planning processes Initially, fiscal decentralization processes were not well adopted due to historical weaknesses in PEM at the sub-national level. Planning and budgeting are currently being integrated in the annual national planning and budgeting cycle through: –the use of MTEF –PEM reforms

7. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 7 Recurrent Transfer Budget

8. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 8 Development Transfer Budget

9. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 9 Local Government Planning and Budgeting Process

10. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 10 Responsibilities of the Local Governments’ Budget Committee –Negotiation and agreement of allocation formulae and grant conditions between sector ministries and local governments; –Identification of issues for inclusion in the NBFP after analyzing the LGBFP; –Providing advice on, and acceptance or rejection of, amendments to conditional grant allocations within the RTBs; –Overseeing the performance of the Comprehensive Local Government Assessments; –Overseeing the coordination of Local Government Capacity Building by donors, central government and local governments; and –Overseeing the coordination of donor support to local governments and the decentralization process.

11. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 11 Budget Consultations In late September, whilst the local government assessment is going on, the LGBC holds consultations with local governments to discuss: –Issues relating to implementation, sector policies and the budget cycle; –The RTB and DTB formats; –Allocation formulae for all grants; and –Percentage flexibility of conditional grant allocations to recurrent sector budgets and sector budget lines.

12. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 12 Using fiscal instruments and policies for alignment As already shown, Uganda uses a menu of fiscal instruments, including: –Conditional grants –Unconditional grants –Equalization grants –Local Development Grant –Development Transfer System –Recurrent Transfer System

13. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 13 Monitoring and evaluation M&E systems are established at the local and at the national level. However, local government capacity for monitoring is stretched especially given the fact that some of their M&E units were recently established. Central government level M&E is stronger and can (legally) intervene in local government. In general, planning data exist through a number of household surveys conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics.

14. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 14 Conclusion Overall, Uganda’s efforts at integrating poverty reduction into local planning and budgeting processes have been impressive. By instituting reforms in intergovernmental relations, the country has largely overcome its legacy of vertical and horizontal imbalances. However, other challenges still lie ahead. Despite these improvements, significant challenges remain in aligning local targets and outcomes with national priorities, and in building local capacity desperately needed to handle greater responsibilities of managing public service in a decentralized context.

15. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 15 Lesson 1 Integrating local and central government planning efforts is a slow process with no quick fixes, even in decentralized polities. Therefore, governments and donors should be prepared for the long haul. Embedding decentralization in a country’s laws provides a sound legal and policy framework for poverty reduction.

16. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 16 Lesson 2 Clearly defining responsibilities for each level of government to the lowest possible level, particularly if backed by resources and capacity to implement, has better prospect for improving the effectiveness in linking policies, plans and budgets.

17. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 17 Lesson 3 A clear, consistent and visible commitment at the highest level to decentralization, especially if backed by broad-based reforms, is relatively more likely to have a deeper, sustainable poverty reduction impact than say, a ‘stop-go’ policy.

18. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 18 Lesson 4 Institutionally linking PRSP with the annual budget cycle and the MTEF is a good success strategy for poverty reduction.

19. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 19 Lesson 5 The number of instruments used in realizing fiscal transfer should be rationalized. Use of too many instruments can overload local government capacity and weaken service delivery and poverty reduction.

20. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 20 Lesson 6 Reviewing PRSPs and improving their content is just as important as the process used to developing them. Both process and content should be given equal weight and emphasise.

21. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 21 Lesson 7 It is probably useful, given the capacity limitations of local governments in most developing countries, to draw a fiscal decentralization strategy prior to implementation.

22. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 22 Lesson 8 While still weak and requiring improvement, Uganda’s continuous monitoring and tracking of public expenditure goes a long way to ensure that the MTEF exercise not only look at planning and projecting expenditure, but also at efficient utilization of the resources.

23. Comparative Lessons on Local Planning & Fiscal Dimensions: The Case of Uganda 23 Lesson 9 Uganda’s monitoring of UPE is also transparent; if any resources are released for schools, it is announced... and no funding is released until implementation timelines are met. It thus offers a "good practice" example in terms of how multiple stakeholders can co-manage and co- monitor interventions to reduce poverty.