Uganda Working Brief Series
Insights from the District Development Project: Table of Contents
Local Government Planning
Evaluation Review Team
Evaluation Review Team- Introduction
- Findings
- - 1.0 District Development Planning
- - 2.0 Sub-county and Parish Development Plans
- Conclusion
- Evaluation Review Team Participants
- Findings
|
Abstract During the DDP formulation, it was evident that District, Sub-county, Parish and Village planning capacities were limited. Decisions concerning resource allocations for public service delivery were made, to a large extent, within the confines of individual development projects. Although Districts are to integrate the plans of lower level local governments into a comprehensive "District Development Plan," it was, and still is, a major challenge for the Districts. The November DDP Review found that progress has been made in local government planning in the five pilot districts. This Brief looks both at the progress made and the areas still needing improvement. |
This is one of a
number of working briefs that extracts highlights from the first District
Development Project Evaluation Review carried out from 18th November
to 19th December 1998 (DDP Pilot Evaluation Review: Findings and Recommendations,
January 1999). The overall purposes of the Review were to document progress
made and suggest changes to the design of DDP where necessary. The priority
areas of focus were identified based on the consultations during the
Sub-county and District forums where project 'hot spots' (challenges
or contributions to project implementation) was highlighted. This Working
Brief focuses on hot spots found within local government planning. (return)
During the Evaluation
Review, it was evident that many of the observations about District
and Sub-county planning processes were similar. However, in recognition
of the different interests of readers, the Review Team's views are separately
presented.
|
"Comprehensive district planning has, like so many other changes outlined in the 1993 statute, taken time to be institutionalized in the districts. District planning has, even in these four districts that are overall considered to be among the more capable in Uganda, only partially been implemented. ... Only Mukono District has so far completed a District Development Plan."
|
1.0 District Development Planning
1.1 Development plans in place
During the formulation
of the DDP, Districts were in the very early stages of preparation of
District Development Plans, indeed, a majority had not yet started the
process. The preparation of Development Plans (in the three-year, rolling
plan format) has clearly been a major undertaking for each District.
They are to be commended for their efforts. Although the following comments
are
largely critical, it must be recognised that much has been achieved
in a very short period and that Districts have markedly improved their
planning capacity.
1.2 Lack of problem analysis
District Development Plans generally include some analysis of the constraints relevant to the District but it is limited to sectoral analysis and not brought together as a unified cross-sectoral analysis. Moreover, the analysis generally fails to raise the "big issues" in the District, whether these are challenges facing agro-pastoralists in the northeast or environmental challenges in the southwest. As a consequence, District Development Plans lack adequate vision and direction.
1.3 Need for clearer statement of vision
A District needs a vision of where it is going that transcends the demands of a single sector and of individual programmes. This requires the District's Development Plan to include an analysis of the specific development challenges facing the District; a strategy for overcoming the challenges; and a statement of cross-cutting District objectives. The objectives need to be specific to the District's circumstances and challenges, not generalised statements that could apply anywhere. When the Review Team analysed the prioritisation and appraisal process (discussed below), it became clear that Districts could not effectively appraise any investment or move forward in a unified manner unless these objectives are clearly expressed.
1.4 Sectoral focus
The Team found that District Development Plans are essentially a collection of sectoral plans and objectives. None have unifying or cross-cutting objectives. They usually contain a statement about the District's goals or objectives, but these are merely a brief re-statement of sectoral goals, sometimes with the addition of a reference to security, law, and order. As a result there are no "reference points" that stand above sectoral objectives to assist the District to appraise investments, to choose between investments, or to determine what proportion of the District's budget should be invested in each sector.
It is not surprising that the District objective setting does not transcend the sectors because, by tradition, sectoral plans are pushed on the Districts from the centre. The use of conditional grants reinforces this vertical approach and contradicts the principle of 'horizontal discretionary financing' (development block grants) being advanced under the DDP. This is not to say that sectoral objectives and plans are not necessary, they are. The problem is that concentrating on these plans and failing to establish higher-level goals for the District leads to a lack of integration and common purpose.
The foreword to one District's Development Plan notes that the District's problems "need to be addressed with a multi-sectoral approach" and some thought had obviously been given to this problem. Unfortunately, none of the sectoral plans refer to other sectoral plans. Vision and "problem-based" integrated planning can best be fostered by the availability of development block grant transfers (such as the LDF); however, developing the corresponding skills to exploit the advantages of the LDF will take time.
1.5 Devolution as a cross-cutting objective
Decentralisation policy and, in particular, intra-district devolution, was highlighted in only one Development Plan. In no case was it treated as a cross-cutting District objective. The team recommends that Districts seriously consider prefacing Development Plans with a commitment to devolution.
It was felt that
the District Development Plans should preface their plans with a commitment
to decentralisation. It is not meant to be just window-dressing. It
is meant, ultimately, to force each department to translate the District's
commitment to decentralisation into devolution of work plans and resource
allocation. Also, it will provide a basis for challenging many of the
ingrained "public service" practices that are reflected in
the Districts and which result in serious inefficiencies (which are
discussed later). A good example of this is the lack of collaboration
between departments in the way they conduct their work, resulting in
the inefficient use of scarce transport resources and less coverage
on the ground in the Sub-counties.
| Section 36(3) of the LG Act 1997 requires Districts to "prepare a comprehensive and integrated development plan incorporating plans of lower Local Governments for submission to the National Planning Authority, and lower level Local Governments shall prepare plans incorporating plans of lower Councils in their respective areas of jurisdiction." |
One District did highlight decentralisation policy as an important factor in its Development Plan; however, the principle was not applied across the Plan. For example, it was not used to appraise sectoral plans to ensure that they give practical effect to devolution in work plans and budgets (i.e., fuel and allowances to get staff out into the Sub-Counties).
1.6 Linkages between District and Sub-county plans
Districts are required
under the Local Government Act, 1997 to incorporate the plans of lower
level local governments in district plans. Further, under DDP, investment
projects must be approved at the level where the recurrent cost obligations
lie. Whilst well publicised, these are completely new practices and
it was not surprising to find there is inadequate linkage between District
and Sub-county and Parish investments.
|
" ...the use, updating and retrieval of planning data is scarce. Most of the available data at district level has been collected by national censuses and only updated nationally...thus the District Development Plan developed by Mukono District contains no baseline data or situational analysis of the sectors in the district. … Planning Units were … also poorly informed about the availability of existing data from other departments."
|
Some District Planners felt that they had captured lower government plans in the District's sectoral plans. This was true only in so far as many lower government plans could be fitted, theoretically, into a sectoral objective and budget code. In many cases, though, lower local government investments visited by the Team could not be satisfactorily traced by the Planner. Most Chief Finance Officers admitted that Sub-county and Parish investments are not yet reflected in their District budget.
It is not just a matter of being able to reflect the budgetary commitments that flow from lower level local government investments (e.g., recurrent funds) or the development revenue at their disposal. More fundamentally, it is a matter of how the District Plan reflects the priorities of lower level local governments. Even where the priorities are similar, there is a need to integrate the effort being made on the ground. For example, the largest share of the LDF is being invested in the field of education (for reasons discussed below) yet District Development Plans do not mention the efforts of the community or the use of their LDF share. As a consequence education departments do not have strategies for working with the parents and communities who are putting up schools using devolved funds. In other words, the considerable efforts of communities (Parent-Teacher's Associations, School Management Committees, etc.) to co-produce education facilities are largely invisible at the District level.
1.7 Reconciliation of national and local priorities
With only one exception,
local councils are investing LDF resources in National Priority Program
Areas (PPAs). However, this is coincidental, as Districts do not recognise
a problem in reconciling national sectoral programs with local investment
choices. At present the problem is not obvious, particularly with so
many Sub-counties and Parishes investing in education. However, with
a better understanding of what is possible under Schedule II there may
be more divergence in what Districts can expect from Sub-county and
Parish investments. The level of divergence is constrained under the
DDP through Performance Measures which offer incentives for District
and Sub-county investment in PPAs. It remains to be seen if this will
stop Sub-counties and Parishes from investing in non-PPA activities.
If there is substantial divergence, the Districts will have to resort
to a mentoring role by negotiating priorities.
| LGs have been given the right and obligation to formulate, approve and execute their budgets and plans provided the budgets shall be balanced (Section 78(1), LGs Act 1997). However, they are required to accord National Priority Program Areas (PPAs) preferential budget outlays (Section 78(2), LGs Act 1997). |
1.8 Community database
A number of District Planners attributed weaknesses in the prioritisation and appraisal process to inadequate data. Thus the situation observed during the DDP formulation continues to prevail. The DDP Performance Measures note that Local Councils will be rewarded where they have made efforts to create better "community responsive" databases. To date, neither the MoLG nor Local Councils havefocused on what this might mean in practice.
The Team is of the
view that the DDP should not invest in duplicating what others havebeen
trying, and very often failing, to do. Data is important, but with the
present levels of planning capacity, it is not clear that Sub-counties
and Parishes would be able to make good use of improved databases. Furthermore,
there is the real possibility that Districts might begin to use improved
databases on existing service delivery and needs to "dictate"
investment priorities to lower level local councils. In the meantime,
it makes more sense to improvethe decision-making capacity (in particular
prioritisation and ppraisal) of lower level councillors whilst also
encouraging District technical staff to better exploit the numerous
existing opportunities offered by donor agencies to "establish
planning databases."
|
|
1.9 Planning and monitoring guides
MoLG has produced three Guides relating to investment planning: the District Planning Guide, Sub-County Investment Planning Guide and Monitoring and Evaluation Operational Manual. They are regarded as "living documents," to be modified based on experience. The Team found there is a clear need to review and reconcile the problem of the District and Sub-county having three different guides. Having three guides has resulted in confusion. One Planner suggested the three guides be "rolled into one guide because having three leads to jumbled information." She said the situation is further compounded by the fact that she found many of the departments using their own planning guides/formats. Also, she noted that the Sub-county Guide is more useful than the older, District guide because it results in a "better picture."
Although DDP is not yet through one complete planning and budgeting cycle, it would make sense to begin a review of the guides if users feel it is necessary.
1.10 Relationship between plans, budgets, and allocation decisions
Numerous aspects
of the LG Act recognise the desirability of (and requirement for) integrated
planning and budgeting. During the formulation of DDP, there were few
clear linkages between investment priorities and available and expected
resources at all levels, from the District level through to the Village
level. This is not surprising as before the availability of LDF resources,
no Local Councils had experience with development block grants (discretionary
funds for development services mandated under the LG Act). For good
reason, therefore, plans represented unreconciled "wish lists"
and were simply documents for political negotiation with external financing
agencies.
|
"... a problematic practice is that the initial planning phases in all districts appear not to be done according to realistic expectations on revenue until rather late in the planning stage."
|
The devolution of
plan and budget responsibilities (1) is the key design feature of the
DDP and, although MoLG/UNCDF hold no illusions about how long it may
take to develop the necessary skills, the Review Team were particularly
keen to gauge progress to date. In all cases, though, Local Councils
report that the availability of LDF resources has changed the nature
of the planning and budgeting process: "it is now taken seriously."
Surprisingly, where intensive capacity building had been provided by
MoLG to Local Councils (chiefly at Sub-county level), considerable progress
has already been recorded. However, this is not the case for the Parish
share of the LDF resources where the reconciliation of "plan and
budget" is at best incidental. (return)
2.0 Sub-county and Parish Development Plans
During 1997 when
DDP was formulated, none of the DDP Pilot Sub-counties or Parish Local
Councils had experience with development planning, despite the requirements
of the 1993 Local Government Statute. No plans existed, few lower level
Local Councils could reconcile expenditure and income estimates, and
many had no capacity for rudimentary analysis of local requirements,
setting priorities nor assembling resources in relation to priorities.
Externally assisted development activities were conceived, planned and
controlled largely by donors and related project management units. Given
this lack of experience and capacities, DDP Investment Planning Guides
provided for two levels of planning competency: namely, "Basic"
and "Advanced." The Basic level was agreed as the entry level
in terms of the Minimum Conditions. In view of the workload associated
with building Sub-county capacity, across 120 plus local councils, during
the April - June 1998 period, compliance with this Minimum Condition
was interpreted somewhat generously. The fact that all qualifying Sub-counties
did produce Investment Plans, albeit of varying quality, is therefore
a tremendous achievement. Nevertheless, improving capacities in order
to move from Basic towards Advanced levels in Investment Plans remains
a key target for the first year of the DDP. In this light, some key
weaknesses were identified during the Evaluation Review.
|
"DDP has given us the independence to make our own decisions, unlike [another agency] that tells you what your priorities are and what you must invest in." Sub-county Forum, Kabale Notes |
2.1 Lack of problem analysis/goals
The Team found no evidence that the Sub-counties and Parishes had analysed the problems and challenges of their area and formulated specific objectives. Sub-county Investment Plans are just a listing of projects, with osts, but without an indication of derivation of costs, a timeframe to prioritise projects, or an indicative implementation schedule.
Having said that, it was evident from discussions that most Sub-counties and Parishes had considered a long list of competing needs and, indeed, most made choices that were publicly acceptable. Some of this process is found in Council meeting minutes, but otherwise there is no documentation to determine how well competing needs were resolved or what informed these choices.
It is not surprising that planning is at such a rudimentary level in Sub-counties and Parishes given the following factors:
- a) There
was a 'rush' from April to July 1998 to prepare development plans
at all levels to meet Minimum Condition assessment deadlines.
- b) District and Sub-county plans were being prepared in the middle of local council elections.
- c) This was the first experience for most Sub-counties and Parishes of having complete license to identify their priorities.
|
"When we got going on DDP preparations, it was the time of politicians preparing for the elections. Our planning process got caught up in this". Sub-county Forum, Kabale Notes |
These three contextual
factors are also relevant in considering why projects were typically
beyond revenue possibilities. Currently, development planning at the
Sub-county and Parish levels is simply making choices between projects.
As a result, more effort needs to be made to make problem analysis
and objective setting more understandable and meaningful to Sub-Counties
and Parishes. This cannot be effectively done in 'crash course' facilitations
as attempted in one District.
It is important to analyse problems and agree on Sub-county or Parish objectives as a means of comparing (and appraising) the different proposals that are put forward. Even if a Sub-county or Parish simply decides that its investments must improve the standard of living of as many people as possible, it would be easier to compare proposals. On this basis, for example, a protected spring may be chosen over a dormitory for girls on the grounds that a far greater number of people would benefit. People may well be applying such principles but they need to be expressed so that commitment can build around the principle and that its application is by general consent. MoLG could greatly assist this process by preparing basic proformas to aid the prioritisation process.
2.2
Project profiles (2)
These had been prepared in those cases where MoLG had worked with district
staff in intensive training sessions. Unfortunately, perhaps due to
pressure of time, Parish level investments had not been prepared using
the Profile format. However, even where profiles were in place, the
Sub-counties seldom referred to them. This is a common development planning
problem project documentation being viewed as something that has to
be done to obtain funding approval but which has no other practical
use. The Profiles should be further extended at the Parish level and
better developed so as to serve as an implementation guide.
2.3 Guides
In a number of Sub-counties
it was indicated that the Investment Planning Guide was not available,
despite the fact that PMU had provided sufficient copies to the District.
There are no Guides of any kind for Parishes and Village-level facilitation
procedures. This was attributed to the interruption in UNDP-MoLG financing.
The MoLG is publishing the Guides. (return)
Districts have made a big effort to prepare their Development Plans and deserve to be commended. However, there are fundamental planning weaknesses and problems to be addressed. All the Development Plans seen by the Review Team were essentially a collection of sectoral plans. There are no goals or objectives that stand above or cut across sectoral objectives. Districts will not be able to prioritise and appraise investments until they develop District-specific objectives. At the Sub-county level, integrated planning and budgeting is a new and unfamiliar concept. The DDP has introduced a "two-level planning process" that aims to move Sub-county planning from the current basic level (collection of Project Profiles) to a more advanced level of planning in the future. It must be noted that despite the constraints and challenges noted in the Brief, overall, the trends are positive. (return)
Endnotes
(1) Section II of the Local Governments Act, 1997 describes the specific responsibilities decentralised to the local governments. (return)
(2) Project Profiles accompany District budgets in order to provide the essential background information needed for the Council to make allocation decisions. Profiles include details such as the justification for the project, its scope of activities, and the implementation schedule. (return)
Evaluation Review Team Participants
The Review process was ably facilitated and guided by consultants Milton Ogeda and Bernard Broughton. Other Core Team and District Team members included the following:
|
In addition, the
Teams would like to record with appreciation the efforts of Local Council
officials and staff, NGOs and community members who contributed freely,
frankly and with good spirit to the Evaluation Review process. (return)|
