Decentralisation began in Uganda in 1993. What have been the positive and negative aspects of Ugandan decentralisation? What can be learned from the Ugandan experience? This paper from the Programme Management Unit, Ministry of Local Government, Uganda, looks into the current status of Ugandan decentralisation and examines the challenges it currently faces.
The paper focuses on two decentralisation pilot projects: the District Development Programme (DDP) and the Local Government Development Programme (LGDP). The DDP ran from 1998 to 2002 and was funded by a $14.5 million grant from the United Nations Capital Development Fund and the United Nations Development Programme. In 2000 the DDP was scaled up through the LGDP, funded by a credit of $80.9 million from the World Bank.
Changes brought about by decentralisation have led to a major realignment in central-local relations; they have had a number of positive impacts but they have also highlighted a number of concerns.
- Decentralisation has created fuller awareness amongst the electorate of their rights and obligations, and this has helped to empower civic society.
- Since decentralisation began, local governments (LGs) have held regular elections and electorates are increasingly demanding performance and accountability from their elected leaders.
- At the national level DDP has made a significant contribution to the policy debates on decentralisation and good governance.
- Biannual monitoring and evaluation (M & E) reviews have shown the need to mainstream gender in DDP/LGDP implementation.
- M & E reviews have highlighted the need to enhance LG appraisal capacity for productive agricultural investment, and to improve the poverty focus and cross-sector analysis in LG development plans.
- They have also brought to light concerns over improving communication in LGs (for transparency, accountability and value for money), and the capacity of LGs for documentation, storage and retrieval of records.
The DDP/LGDP has identified a number of tensions and several have implications for potential donors.
- LGs have to have minimum capacities before they can access the development grant under the DDP/LGDP. These mean that very needy LGs may not meet the minimum access requirements.
- During the DDP/LGDP tension arose between donors and LGs over accountability procedures. The conflict remains unresolved and has been complicated further if LG is supported by many donors with differing accountability requirements.
- Line ministries have not fully come to terms with their changing roles. Some see the failure of line ministries to change their behaviour as a major threat to decentralisation in Uganda.
- Donors have adopted different ways to support decentralisation and there is no uniform approach. The government is considering harmonising donor interactions with LGs, but there is likely to be tension over the recommended system.
- Some believe that Ugandan LGs have been ‘over-piloted’. Parliament now seems increasingly reluctant to approve loans for pilots that do not cover the whole country.
- Whilst the objective of DDP/LGDP has been to strengthen LG institutions, this strategy has caused tension with NGOs who have argued that they have been omitted from the process.
