Uganda Working Brief Series
Insights from the District Development Project: Table of Contents
Commitment, Participation, and Trust
James Omoding, Annet Mpabulungi, and Deb Johnson
Introduction
Commitment
Participation
Trust
Looking
to the Future
In July and August 1998, the Project Management Unit (PMU) of the Ministry of Local Government (1), UNCDF staff, and consultants associated with the District Development Project (DDP) assisted the Pilot Districts to identify those Sub-counties that fulfilled the Minimum Conditions needed to qualify for the Local Development Funds (LDFs) and Capacity Building Funds (CBF). (2) This was the first time such an appraisal had occurred and it will become an annual feature of the DDP.
Stories arising during the visits were interesting and thought provoking. Something unusual was happening in the Districts—people in the villages and towns were putting pressure on the local government system to make sure their sub-counties and districts met the Minimum Conditions. The stories differed, but the results were the same. Community members were demanding accountability of their elected representatives and local administration, a key goal of good governance.
In some cases, community members and Village and Parish leaders concerned that their villages and parishes meet the Minimum Conditions went as far as threatening the Sub-county Chiefs and Councillors. They threatened to label these officials “non-performers” or “liars” where they were found to be misleading the community (making unrealistic campaign promises) or failing to fulfil their obligations as elected leaders and officials. Indeed, these were not idle threats, as we relate below. Some of the Sub-county administrators who failed to take heed of the threats were run out of town.
From the stories
that are emerging, we found three essential environmental factors emerging
that are important to improving governance. We use the term “environmental
factors” deliberately to recognise that a Project cannot create
“good governance” but can only help create an environment
for people to become actively involved in defining their own governance.
In two Sub-counties of Arua and Kabale Districts respectively, community members went to the District Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to complain and request for the removal of non-performing Sub-county chiefs. Community members in Arua complained
“Our Sub-county chief spends a lot of time drinking. It seems he is not put enough effort for preparing our Sub-county meet the minimum Conditions. We cannot afford to lose this money, we would like to have someone else who can perform."
Officials in Jinja District could not bear the pain of failing to meet the Minimum Conditions because the District had previously maintained a reputation of excellent performance. Districts officials helped those Sub-counties that had not met the Minimum Conditions prepare for another assessment. Then the District sent representatives to the PMU of MoLG to request another assessment. The District was willing to provide fuel and all related expenses for another assessment.
In Alerek Sub-county of Kotido District, the community requested that both their Sub-county Chief and Sub-accountant be summoned to answer to charges of non-performance. It was resolved that they appear before the LC (3) Council and Member of Parliament for the area. The CAO and the District Service Commission were requested to dismiss the Chief and Sub-accountant in order to maintain peace. In Kalapata Sub-county to defuse tension between the Sub-county Executive Committee and the Sub-county technical staff, the Sub-accountant requested a transfer if they felt he was the cause of the Sub-county failing to meet the minimum conditions.
These three environmental factors are: commitment to devolution of governance as close as possible to community members; active and willing participation of community members in the governance process; and establishing trust amongst development actors at all levels.
During the formulation
of the DDP, it was expected that perhaps half of all Sub-counties might
qualify in the first year. Due to such pressure from communities as
highlighted in the above incidents, in four out of the five Pilot Districts
more than 75% of the Sub-counties met the Minimum Conditions. In two
of the most remote and isolated communities, almost 100% of the Sub-counties
qualified by the end of September 19983 . This went beyond the DDP excpectations
and, in part, demonstrates the positive impact of an informed and active
constituency
Uganda
The five DDP Pilot districts are Arua, Jinja, Kabale, Kotido and Mukano
So, the question
is raised again, why? In searching for the reason, we kept returning
to the three environmental factors noted earlier—commitment, participation
and trust—and looked more closely at how the DDP contributed to
or benefited from the fragile development of these three factors. It
was clear these three factors are inter-related—one builds and
strengthens the others. Participation does not happen easily (if at
all) without trust and commitment. Long term commitment does not occur
without participation. And trust is created from participation and commitment.
(return)
It became evident after comparing the DDP experiences in Uganda with experiences in other countries that one of the most important factors is “commitment” to putting power closer to people through devolution of planning and financing to lower levels of government. In the beginning, this is the political commitment in the form of a written and ratified policy framework for devolution of both responsibility and authority. In Africa, where policy has lagged or does not have the commitment of those in power, the establishment of decentralised planning and financing instruments like LDFs has stalled or even failed. [LDFs provide financial resources to local authorities to introduce decentralised, participatory planning and management of local infrastructure and services.]
After the initial policy framework for decentralisation was created, it opened the door for devolution in Uganda, but did not ensure it. The initial commitment is relatively easy as it does not necessarily require sharing decision making power. However, further commitments become more of a struggle because they demand an examination of roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority accompanied by the commitment to release control over decisions about how resources will be used.
Commitment by the
Uganda Government along with the devolution of parts of the recurrent
budget has encouraged people in the villages and towns to believe that
the government is committed to the devolution of the capital development
budget. In addition, the DDP has shown its commitment in several ways—the
two most important signs of commitment have been through its consultative
formulation process and by signing Memoranda of Understanding with the
Pilot Districts and Sub-counties as part of the DDP process. The former
Permanent Secretary, MoLG, Mr. Francis Lubanga during the signing of
the Project Support Implementation Agreement (PSIA) in Kabale on the
27 March 1998 remarked that, “Indeed we are set to decentralise
everything... in this, we are not going to retreat, the government is
totally committed.” (return)
The most exciting discoveries in the Districts came from the people-driven participation in the planning and allocation process. There is abundant literature and dialogue concerning various ways and means to increase community participation (especially the poor and otherwise marginalised) in development planning and implementation, but little documentation on successful links between community planning and local government planning. As noted previously, demonstrated and ongoing, commitment on the side of the Central Government and key stakeholders in the DDP to the devolution of the capital development budget is an essential factor for encouraging and sustaining participation.
What are the other contributing influences to increase community members’ participation in the DDP Pilot so far? Although some of the reasons can be found in the stories above, there still seems to be a lingering question—what has motivated people to become so active in the DDP where other community development and good governance projects have failed? There seem to be several reasons behind people’s motivation to participate.
External
Influences: Some of the reasons people provided were in relation
to favourable influences external to the Project, such as the districts
and sub-counties using participatory planning methods frequently introduced
and facilitated by other organisations, and the local council elections.
For example, project implementation started at a time when Members of
Parliament and Local Governments had just been elected. The respective
elected members had commonly made promises about improving infrastructure
in their constituents. Hence they were eager to show off their capability
to do so.
Internal Influences: Some of the
reasons can be attributed to Project’s efforts, such as promoting
formal and informal communication channels and recognising accomplishments.
External Influences
Use of Participatory Planning Methods
Exposure of District and Sub-county officials to participatory planning methods greatly improved the District and some of the Sub-county plans as well as providing for greater understanding and ownership of the plans by village and parish leaders. In Arua, the District Planning Office brought in representatives from the NGOs, the Parish Executive Committees, the Youth and Women’s Councils, and the Disabled Union to participate in the discussion about plans and priorities. After discussing the National Programme Priority Areas (PPAs), the group decided on a prioritised list of needs, which they plan to take back to the villages to discuss and modify as the need arose. In at least one Sub-county of Arua, a CAP (Community Action Programme) facilitator assisted the Parish Council to reach all of the village heads to gather their priorities for the LDF. These priorities were then passed on to the Sub-county for consideration.
In Kotido District, all government workers (especially the headmasters of schools as they were seen as vital to understanding Parish-level needs), Parish Council Chairpersons, the Sub-county Executive Committee, clan elders/leaders sat together and talked of the needs of each village on a case-by-case basis to decide on their Sub-county’s priorities.
In many cases, the participatory processes were introduced and/or facilitated by other organisations working in the area. For example, the process of creating the District Development Plan in Kabale was partially facilitated by GOU/UNICEF through its support to a planning process for its children’s rights programme. The children’s rights planning process carried out focus group discussions on development issues and needs in each parish. The District Planning Office took advantage of this process to gather information not only about children’s rights and needs but about the other needs of the communities. The needs and priorities generated at the parish level were forwarded to the Sub-county and finally to the District for inclusion into the District Development Plan.
The examples given above, are an indication that the transparent and open dialogue of community needs at both the District and Sub-county levels was important in building confidence and trust in the system. The more people were exposed to the planning and allocation process, the more information that was fed into informal and formal communication channels. With more information, people in villages and parishes better understood where the bottlenecks were or could occur in the emerging planning process. Armed with this understanding, they pushed to make sure the planning process worked for them.
Local Council Elections
In the year and a half after the Project formulation process began, the impending Local Council elections were a major source of discussion, workshops, and reference materials. Also, communities received significant exposure through various forms of mass media.
The elections were
an opportunity to raise awareness about the Local Council system and
the Local Government Act, 1997. In addition, they served as a platform
for opening dialogue on many contentious issues including multiparty
politics, land tenure, characteristics of a quality leadership, and
corruption. The latter two issues have had a direct effect on the implementation
of the DDP, as they are key components of the DDP
implementation.
Better understanding
of the Local Council system and the attributes of a quality leader helped
community members realise that they have a source of control and influence
over local government administration as well as planning and allocation.
Traditional leaders in Kotido meeting to review Minimum Conditions with
MoLG were surprised to meet District staff, some of whom they had never
seen. At one meeting, some District staff were asked to explain to the
gathering why this was the first time they were seen in the Sub-county.
In Kalapata Sub-county, one of the local councillors was chased out
of the meeting for giving “false” information against the
residents. The Councillor claimed that it was high rates of illiteracy,
which affected people’s participation in areas such as tax collection,
and not the poor performance of the Sub-county chief. The residents
did not agree and chased him away.
Internal Influences
Accomplishment and Recognition
The push and motivation
for Sub-counties to meet the Minimum Conditions was not just coming
from the communities, but also from the staff and Councillors themselves.
There are many who have experienced the same disappointment and frustration
as community members since so few of the community development priorities
have been realised in the past due to a variety of reasons including:
inadequate funding; district priorities not reflective of people’s
needs; and, in places such as Arua and Kotido, lack of safety and security.
As such, some of the Sub-county officials went to great lengths to ensure
that their Sub-county met the Minimum Conditions and are noted in stories
such as the ones noted above. These stories demonstrate that sense of
accomplishment and recognition at District and Sub-county levels have
an impact on staff performance, which in turn can motivate community
members to become more involved in monitoring the Project’s activities
and progress.
In Arua District, the frustration felt by Sub-county councillors and administrative staff drove the Chief and Chairman of Kei Sub-county (on the Sudan border with Uganda) to risk their own personal safety to deliver the Sub-county’s books of account and proof of other Minimum Conditions in time for assessment.
In Kabale District, enthusiasm was high among Sub-county leaders and was evidenced from the fact that they did not leave their offices during the assessment week in case they missed the assessment team’s visit. The areas of focus by the assessment team-council resolution minutes to sign the project support imple-mentation Agreement (PSIA), a bank statement, and the PSIA- were prominently marked with coloured adhesive.
At the national launch of the DDP, the Deputy CAO of Kabale remarked that the District and Sub-county staff felt a great sense of accomplishment and recognition at having met all the Minimum Conditions for the LDF.
Informal and Formal Communication
Information about the Project has been circulating in the villages of the initial four Districts (4) since the Project’s formulation process. This was highlighted in a statement from the District Planner in Mukono who said, “You have been talking about this project for a long time and now that it has finally come, you better be sure to ensure we get the money this time. If the money does not come, it will be difficult for us to face the people we have been training and sensitising about the DDP as a project with a difference.”
The formulation process increased awareness of the Project, but there was a significant gap between the district-level consultation process and the implementation phase of DDP. At the start of the implementation phase, there was increased communication about the Project through both formal and informal communication channels giving the impression that there is “something happening” and attracting the attention of community members again. The Project’s attention to formal and informal communication channels have contributed greatly to people’s participation. Some of the ways the Project supported the dissemination of information are found below.
Formal Channels
Publishing Indicative Planning Figures (IPFs)
As the Districts
learnt of the amount of funds they would receive from UNCDF/UNDP through
the Central Government, the District CAOs alerted the Sub-counties of
the amounts for which they could be eligible if they met the Minimum
Conditions. The sub-counties officially notified the Parish Chairpersons
and Parish Chiefs either by letter or through meetings. The Sub-counties
used several means to publicise the Indicative Planning Figures for
the Parishes. IPFs were published in newspapers, advertised on the radio,
announced during church services, and posted in market places in various
languages. These different channels helped to disseminate the information
widely, raised people’s expectations and increased awareness of
the obligations of local leaders.
“People now come for meetings, because they know this is serious, there is money to decide about. We now get more people coming to meetings.”
Sub-county Councillor, Kabale
The greatest impact of this formal communication of IPFs was that it linked a frequently abstract and disappointing planning process with a real allocation figure. So often planning at the village and parish level was done to please NGOs or others, but the decisions about allocations and the handling of funds are done outside. The ability to plan according to real figures that are officially published by the districts had a significant empowering effect on villages and parishes.
With anything new,
however, there were some problems publicising the IPFs. For example,
Mukono District advertised the IPFs on the radio, but only in English.
As such, several Sub-county and Parish members said that they were aware
that something was happening but they could not understand the English
announcements sufficiently to fully grasp the intended message. Also,
some of the Districts do not have newspapers in local languages or they
lack a wide distribution of newspapers thereby limiting the ability
of some districts to reach remote areas. Many of the sub-counties did
not publish specific IPFs (5) for the parishes but as a percent for fear of commitment
if the District would not live up to its commitment.
Investment and Finance Committee Meetings
The Investment and
Finance Committee meetings have allowed a new avenue for community members
to get involved in understanding and monitoring community planning and
allocation systems. Functioning Finance and Investment Committees were
one of the Minimum Conditions and something new in the Sub-counties.
As the meetings are being held in rural settings, they attract attention
at first of passing village members, in the process the news carries
to other village members.
Going beyond early expectations, the meetings have resulted in more
than an information-sharing opportunity, they have been used as a way
for community members to vocalise their priorities and concerns. Also,
they offer a physical demonstration of the difference between the way
the DDP is being implemented and how other less successful projects
have been implemented. One example of this difference cited by community
members was that they know the representatives at the committee meetings.
This difference has been noticed by community members and leaders building
new trust and further commitment to continue with the process despite
the failed projects and broken promises of the past. Caution and distrust
were very evident in Kotido where history and cultural contrasts have
marginalised the Karimojong from political events in Uganda. Their acceptance
of the Project coupled with strong warnings and demands for proof will
serve as a critical judge of the ongoing implementation process.
Informal Channels
Supplementing the formal communication channels, the Project was being discussed and new information spread through a variety of informal channels in the Districts. Social groups/clubs , NGO development activities (such as the Community Action Progamme (CAP) in Arua), the meetings of newly created investment committees, and traditional leadership structures (such as found in Kotido) provided different forums for communication and, more importantly, analysis of the information by community members in a local setting. Of particular interest to the DDP are the traditional institutions of the local tribe in Uganda called the Karimojong (which are far stronger than the recent introduction of Local Council structures) and the investment and finance committee meetings. (return)
The DDP Pilot Project Document recognised that one of the main challenges to the successful devolution of capital development funds to lower levels of government was to breakdown the layers of distrust amongst community members, central government, local councils, and “projects” (whether they are NGO or bi/multi-lateral projects).
Once betrayed, trust is not something that is easily re-established. The history of Uganda up to the instalment of the NRM government has offered little towards building faith or trust in the government, local or central. The current government has provided some security and stability, in terms of ability to travel due to improved road system, availability of goods in the markets, and, for some, visible economic gain. Due to this increased security and stability, some people are beginning to see hope for the future.
There is a fragile trust being established between the community members, Local Council leaders and the DDP. It started with the formulation process where many people were involved in the consultations and were learning about the project long before it began. It has continued to develop during the implementation process through visits, updates, and training’s supported by PMU. One of the key elements in proving the Project’s commitment to the districts and sub-counties, and thereby continuing to nurture this growing trust, is to ensure the timely release of promised funds. It is imperative that the funds arrive in the time promised, since long delays or failure to provide the funds promised could destroy this trust and prove very difficult to re-establish. Although, it should also be noted that the disruption in financial flows from the centre to districts following the collapse of the International Credit Bank (holding the bulk of the DDP funds) has sorely tested this trust.
There is also trust being built between Local Councils and the Central Government. It is evident in the remarks made by Sub-county Chiefs who feel that there seems to be a real commitment by the Central Government to decentralisation with the devolution of the capital budgets through piloting of the LDF.
As if to emphasise the fragility of this trust, the Chairman of Odravu Sub-county, Arua District had this to say during the assessment exercise, “Never before in my time on this earth has the District actually signed a letter of agreement with a Sub-county. This is the beginning of the district and central government to recognise that without sub-counties, the Districts do not exist.”
On the basis of this display of commitment by the Districts to sign agreements, and to be held accountable through the Performance Assessment process, some of the Sub-counties signed the agreement without reading it. It is either a great show of trust or naiveté, but perhaps unwise in many respects. Some of the actors such as councillors who were newly elected did not internalise what was expected and the implications.
The Sub-county Investment
and Financial committees meetings have helped the Parish and Village
leaders and communities feel that they are an integral part of the decentralisation
process. This sense of belonging is essential to building the Local
Councils’ trust of the Central Government’s intentions and
commitment to decentralisation and to recognising the capacities of
lower levels of government to work on behalf of community members. (return)
There are several
lessons already emerging from the first phase of the implementation
process. Many of the lessons are positive in that community members
have taken an active interest in the workings of their local governments.
Some of the lessons point to weak areas and possible risks in the second
phase of the implementation process. There are several questions emerging.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Many stakeholders in the Project, mainly at the community level as well as the District Planning Units, have expressed strong concern on how to effectively monitor and evaluate the many pieces of investment projects that are reflected in the Sub-county Investment Plans. Additionally, the communities are still anxious about their role in managing, monitoring and evaluating the use of the LDF.
Some of their key monitoring and evaluation concerns are:
a. Has the project been well invested?
b. Will the project be well managed?
c. Have community projects been effectively and efficiently developed and prioritised?
Finance, Accountability and Timing
How does the PMU ensure/guarantee timely release of funds to the Districts, as promised by the donors and the Government? Failure to release funds could result in an unrecoverable loss of trust and faith in the Project.
Proper financial accountability is still a major problem at the District and Sub-county levels. The speed at which decentralisation is taking place, especially at the Sub-county levels, has found many of the financial systems and skills lacking. Donors from the Nordic countries and Japan are uncovering large misappropriations of funds at the Central Government and the Districts levels, and have stopped funding until proper accountability and in some cases, reimbursement by the GoU is made.
How do we ensure that the DDP pilot does not face similar problems? How well will the quarterly payments fit within the investment cycles of the communities (at the village and parish levels).
This Brief is an attempt to capture some of the stories coming out during the implementation of the DDP and to tease out some of the factors contributing to the Project’s initial success. We hope they will serve as a basis for further exchange and learning. (return)
Endnotes
(1) PMU is an executing agency of the DPP. (return)
(2) LDF is a financing facility provided to assist the Local Govenments in setting up development projects and provide Social services within their constituencies.
CBF is the fund that is provided to assist Local Councils to determine, plan and manage services to meet their own capacity building requirements and those of other agencies within their administrative areas that contribute to service delivery, such as contractors, community based organisation and NGOs. (return)
(3) The districts of Kabale and Arua had 100% of the Sub-counties qualifying for LDF funds. (return)
(4) Arua, Jinja, Kabale an Mukono were the first four districts involved in the project. Kotido came into the process much later. (return)
(5) Each Parish that qualifies for LDF funds is given an Indicative Planning Figure( IPF ) at the begining of the fiscal year. (return)
Return to top
