One National Strategy: Progress and Challenges

1
One National Strategy Progress and Challenges

• Diego Angemi
• PMAU/MoFPED
• January 31, 2006

2
Outline

• Introduction The PEAP
• HIV/AIDS and Poverty The PSR 2005/06
• Conclusion

3
Introduction The PEAP

• The PEAP is Ugandas national development
  framework and medium term planning tool
• The PEAP, which is also the countrys Poverty
  Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), guides the
  formulation of government policy and
  implementation of programmes through the
  sector-wide approach and decentralization

4
Introduction The PEAP

• Too early to assess medium term impact of Direct
  Budget Support. Nonetheless, Uganda achieved real
  gains in terms of scaling up the delivery of
  basic health and education services, increasing
  the focus of the budget, and giving people
  confidence to claim their rights (DFID, 2004)

5
Introduction The PEAP

• The lack of incentive to limit donor project
  expenditures at a sectoral level has placed
  upward pressure on the aggregate fiscal deficit,
  which in turn has complicated monetary policy,
  and especially exchange rate, management
  (MoFPED, 2004)

6
Introduction The PEAP

• Project aid often also has political strings
  attached and it may promote local business
  interests of the donor, fuel corruption, and
  distort public funds from social services to
  project management, in place of the real
  development needs of the recipient

7
Introduction The PEAP
8
Introduction The PEAP
9
HIV/AIDS and Poverty The PSR 2005/06

• Devastating impact of HIV/AIDS (eg. 1985-2020,
  agricultural sector losing approx. 14 of labour
  force)
• Concerns not fully translated into funding
  priorities. (Notably, not a funding issue!)

10
HIV/AIDS and Poverty The PSR 2005/06

• PEAP encourages mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS.
  Notably, it falls short of outlining how this
  process is to be (i) put in place, (ii) budgeted
  for, and (iii) monitored
• gt Part explanation Lack of ownership, and
  oversight over the funding mechanisms and
  allocations of donor funding (e.g. PEPFAR)

11
Conclusion

• GoU
• Development partners to regulate the activities
  of those partners who have failed to keep up with
  the pace of the policy debate, are unable to
  guarantee value for their money, and continue to
  neglect Ugandas home grown development agenda