Assessment of Development Results: Uganda - OECD.org · iv CONTENTS 6. Strategic positioning of UNDP 6.1. How UNDP positioned itself 6.2 Developing partnerships 6.3 Coordination 6.4

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATIefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FORsustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneAN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWNNATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINATIefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FORsustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneHUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATI

United Nations Development ProgrammeEvaluation OfficeOne United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USATel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo

Sales #: E.09.III.B.33 ISBN: 978-92-1-126268-1

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTSE V A L U A T I O N O F U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N UGANDA

ASSESSMEN

T OF DEVELOPM

ENT RESU

LTSU

GAN

DA

f_UgandaADR_coverFl:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:11 PM Page 1

Evaluation Office, September 2009United Nations Development Programme


f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page A

Team Leader Christian Bugnion

Team Members Betty BigombeRose Azuba Musoke

EO Task Manager Vijayalakshmi Vadiveluand Team Member

Copyright © UNDP 2009, all rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.

The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations MemberStates. This is an independent publication by UNDP and reflects the views of its authors.

Design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Production:

EVALUATION TEAM

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION – UGANDA

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER THE ADR SERIES

AfghanistanArgentinaBangladeshBarbados and OECSBeninBhutanBosnia & HerzegovinaBotswanaBulgariaChinaColombiaRepublic of the CongoEgyptEthiopiaGuatemalaHondurasIndiaJamaica

JordanLao PDRMontenegroMozambiqueNicaraguaNigeriaRwandaSerbiaSudanSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanTurkeyUgandaUkraineUzbekistanViet NamYemen

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page B

F O R E W O R D i

The Evaluation Office of the United NationsDevel opment Programme (UNDP) conductsindependent evaluations of UNDP contributionsto development results through its countryprogrammes. These evaluations, titled Assessmentsof Development Results (ADRs), evaluate therelevance and strategic positioning of UNDPsupport and contributions to the country’sdevelopment over a period. The purpose of anADR is to generate lessons for future countrylevel programming and to contribute to theorganization’s effectiveness and substantiveaccountability. This report presents the findingsand recommendations of an ADR conducted in Uganda, with a time- frame covering countryprogrammes from 2001 to 2009. More specifi-cally, this ADR provides forward- lookingrecommendations to assist UNDP Uganda andits partners in formulating an action plan for thenext programming cycle (2010–2014).

The evaluation looked at the range of supportprovided by UNDP to Uganda in the areas ofpoverty reduction, sustainable environment,democratic governance, and crisis prevention andrecovery in a post- conflict and human developmentcontext. Uganda has made significant progress insocial and economic development in the past twodecades and is moving steadily towards sustain-able growth and poverty reduction. In regionsaffected by conflict, Uganda is in the process oftransitioning to recovery. There have beenconsiderable achievements in ensuring a stablemacroeconomic environment and progresstowards achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs).

The government has adopted various nationalstrategies to address development challenges and post- conflict reconstruction. The PovertyEradication Action Plan has been implementedfor the past decade, and the government has

prepared the Peace, Recovery and DevelopmentPlan and the Karamoja Integrated Disarmamentand Development Programme in order to address post- conflict and development issues in thegreater north. Efforts are underway to develop aNational Development Plan, a long- term strategythat is intended to tie together various policyframeworks, to maximize achievements made sofar and build on opportunities, and to address thechallenges that constrain social and economicdevelopment in the country. The internationalcommunity, including various UN agencies, hasplayed an important role in supporting nationaldevelopment strategies. Despite trends showingsolid economic growth, Uganda faces numerouschallenges, which include tackling regional dispar-ities in poverty, high population growth, reducinginfant and maternal mortality, strengthening thecapacities of public management institutions andminimizing the effects of climate change.

The evaluation found that UNDP contributionhas been significant in terms of responsiveness tonational priorities and needs. Amid a competitiveaid environment, particularly one predisposed tobudget support, UNDP maintained its relevance.In strengthening democratic governance, supportprovided by UNDP to institutions at the nationaland local level has been important. UNDP made a significant contribution in post- conflictrecovery by supporting the preparation andoperationalization of policy related to return,strengthening government systems to betterrespond to post- conflict recovery and minimizingrisk to human security. Consistent support wasprovided to government efforts in monitoringprogress in achieving the MDGs. Nevertheless,there are a number of remaining areas in whichUNDP can provide valuable assistance, especiallyin governance reforms and participatory localgovernance, post- conflict recovery and addressingsome areas of MDGs.

FOREWORD

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page i

F O R E W O R Di i

Reducing regional disparities and strengtheninggovernance systems, both at the national andlocal levels, will continue to be an essentialprecondition for sustainable development and for recovery and transition in northern Uganda.The evaluation recognizes the importance ofcontinued UNDP engagement in priority areaswhere enhanced national capacity and ownershipof development processes can lead to significantresults. The evaluation suggests that UNDPshould ensure that all programme interventionsare oriented to informing policy formulation and provide technical support to the government.To maximize results in areas central to theUNDP mandate and to build on its comparativeadvantages, the evaluation recommends that UNDPbecome more strategic in its focus. In post- conflictrecovery, it is suggested that UNDP continuesadvocating and supporting peace- building initia-tives together with support to recovery and humansecurity. UNDP should also make a strongercommitment to addressing cross- cutting issues,particularly gender, environment and HIV/AIDS.

This report would not have been possiblewithout the strong interest and support ofnumerous officials of the Government ofUganda, at both the national and local levels. Iwould like to offer sincere thanks to Aston Kajara,State Minister for Investment, and Abel Rwendeire,Deputy Chairman, National Planning Authority.The team is also indebted to civil society and non- governmental organization representatives,the donor community of Uganda and the UnitedNations Country Team, all of whom generouslygave their time and contributed frank views.

A number of people have contributed to this report.In particular, the evaluation team composed ofChristian Bugnion (Team Leader), Betty Bigombe

(Senior International Evaluator), Rose AzubaMusoke (National Expert) and the UNDPEvaluation Office team member and TaskManager Vijayalakshmi Vadivelu. I would like toexpress my special thanks to Betty Bigombe,former Minister for Pacification, for the valuablecontribution to the evaluation. I also wish tothank Chelsey Wickmark for her backgroundresearch and Cecilia Corpus, Thuy Hang To andAnish Pradhan for their administrative support.In addition, I would like to express my apprecia-tion to Alain Thery and David Rider Smith, theexternal reviewers of the ADR report.

The research and preparation of the evaluationwas completed thanks to the collaboration andopenness of the staff of UNDP Uganda, led byResident Representative Theophane Nikyema. I would like to offer special thanks to MarySymmonds, Country Director, who acted as thecountry office focal point for the evaluation. I also wish to thank Augustine Wandera, SamIbanda and Srikiran Devara for all the support inorganizing the various missions for the ADR.Finally, I would like to express my appreciation tothe UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa, particu-larly Tegegnework Gettu, Assistant Secretary- General and Director of the Bureau, and MiaSeppo, Senior Programme Adviser, for theirefficient support.

I hope that the findings and recommendations ofthis report will assist UNDP in responding to thecountry’s challenges and provide broader lessonsthat may be of relevance to UNDP and itspartners internationally.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, Evaluation Office

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page ii

C O N T E N T S i i i

Foreword

Acronyms and abbreviations

Executive summary

1. Introduction1.1 Rationale for the evaluation1.2 Purpose and scope1.3 Method1.4 Evaluation criteria1.5 Limitations

2. National context

2.1 Structure of the state2.2 Demographic trends2.3 Economy and employment2.4 National development planning2.5 Poverty and human development2.6 Security and conflict resolution2.7 Reducing risk of HIV/AIDS2.8 Gender equity2.9 Sustainable environment2.10 National development challenges2.11 Development assistance

3. UNDP and the UN in Uganda

3.1 UNDAF and second UNDP country programme (2001–2005)3.2 UNDAF and third UNDP country programme (2006–2009)3.3 UNDP response and programming portfolio3.4 Resource mobilization and programme delivery3.5 Programme execution

4. Contribution to development results

4.1 Democratic governance4.2 Poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods4.3 Crisis prevention and recovery

5. Cross- cutting issues

5.1 Enhancing gender equity5.2 Enhancing capacity development5.3 Minimizing the risk of HIV/AIDS5.4 Rights- based approach

CONTENTS

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page iii

C O N T E N T Si v

6. Strategic positioning of UNDP

6.1. How UNDP positioned itself6.2 Developing partnerships6.3 Coordination6.4 Programme management

7. Conclusions and recommendations

7.1 Main conclusions7.2 Recommendations

Annexes

1. Terms of Reference2. MDG and donor disbursement statistics3. Programmes under each practice area4. Documents consulted5. List of people consulted

Boxes

Box 1. Evaluation question checklist Box 2. Political profile of UgandaBox 3. Challenges of furthering participatory planningBox 4. Challenges of ‘hand out’ practices

Figures

Figure 1. GDP by economic activity at constant (2002) prices, percentage share, fiscal yearsFigure 2. Total donor commitments, 2003–2004 to 2007–2008 Figure 3. Total grant disbursements, 2004–2005 to 2007–2008Figure 4. Core and non- core resources

Tables

Table 1. Expenditure on GDP at constant (2002) prices, percentage change, calendar yearsTable 2. Progress towards achieving Millennium Development GoalsTable 3. Summary of disbursements by type of assistance, 2003–2004 to 2007–2008Table 4. Country programme outcomes, 2006–2010 Table 5. Programme funding by practice area, 2004–2009Table 6. Outcome areas and interventions Table 7. Poverty reduction and sustainable livelihood- activity areas and interventionsTable 8. Conflict prevention and recovery activities, interventions and funds allocated

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page iv

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S v

ADR Assessment of Development Results

ALD Aid Liaison Department

CCA Common Country Assessment

CSO Civil society organization

DDMC District Disaster Management Coordinator

DDMR Department of Disaster Management and Refugees

DEI Directorate of Ethics and Integrity

DEX Direct Execution Modality

GDP Gross domestic product

HDI Human Development Index

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IGG Inspector General of Government

KIDDP Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme

LCC Local Council Courts

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

NDP National Development Plan

NEX National Execution Modality

NGO Non-governmental organization

PDM Participatory Development Management

PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan

PRDP Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda

PSPC Private Sector Promotion Company

SALW Small arms and light weapons

TRP Transition to Recovery Programme

UN United Nations

UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund

UNCT United Nations Country Team

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNV United Nations Volunteers

VSCIs Village Savings and Credit Institutions

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page v

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page vi

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

The ‘Assessment of Development Results:Evaluation of UNDP Contribution – Uganda’,was led by the Evaluation Office of the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) andwas carried out by a team of independentconsultants between February and June 2009.The Assessment of Development Results (ADR)covers the UNDP programme since 2001, whichincludes two programme cycles. The objectives ofthe ADR in Uganda include:

� Provide an independent assessment of theprogress, or lack thereof, towards the expectedoutcomes envisaged in UNDP programmingdocuments. Where appropriate, the ADR willalso highlight unexpected outcomes (positiveor negative) and missed opportunities.

� Provide an analysis of how UNDP haspositioned itself to add value in response tonational needs and changes in the nationaldevelopment context.

� Present key findings, draw key lessons, andprovide a set of clear and forward- lookingoptions for management to make adjust-ments in the current strategy and the nextcountry programme.

The ADR had two main components: an analysis of UNDP contributions to developmentresults and strategic positioning in response todevelopment needs. The evaluation used thetriangulation method, which included a detailedreview of documents pertaining to the UNDPprogramme and development context in Uganda,a meta- evaluation of project and thematic evalua-tions carried out by the country office, and semi- structured stakeholder interviews and field visits.The ADR followed a participatory approach, inwhich key stakeholders are consulted at differentstages of the ADR.

DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT IN UGANDA

Uganda has made significant progress in socialand economic development during the past twodecades and is moving steadily towards sustain-able growth and poverty reduction. In regionsaffected by conflict, Uganda is the process ofrecovery and reconstruction. There have beenconsiderable achievements in ensuring a stablemacroeconomic environment and progressingtowards achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs). The government has adoptedvarious national strategies to address developmentchallenges and post- conflict reconstruction. ThePoverty Eradication Action Plan has beenimplemented for the past decade. The govern-ment recently prepared the Peace, Recovery andDevelopment Plan for Northern Uganda and theKaramoja Region Development Program inorder to address northern Uganda issues (whichinclude return, resettlement and reconstructionin war- affected districts) and development in Karamoja. Efforts are underway to develop a National Development Plan, a long- termstrategy that is intended to tie together variouspolicy frameworks, to maximize achievementsmade so far, to build on opportunities, and toaddress the challenges that constrain social andeconomic development in the country.

Despite important development efforts, certainchallenges remain. Although Uganda is on trackto meet several of its MDG goals, success inactually attaining them will require strongeconomic growth (at least 7 percent per annum),a significant reduction in the population growthrate, and an equitable distribution of growth anddevelopment. As pointed out in the synthesisreport reviewing the effectiveness of the PovertyEradication Action Plan, simultaneously securingthese three outcomes will prove a major challenge.Improved governance is one of the areas thatneed to be addressed in order to effectively

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page vii

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

implement policies and enhance transparencyand accountability in public fund management.Environmental sustainability and the impact ofclimate change, and its linkages to povertyreduction remain a major challenge for Uganda.

UNDP RESPONSE

UNDP has been supporting developmentprogrammes and policies in Uganda for overthirty years. The first structured countryprogramme (1997–2000) was aimed atpromoting democratic governance for povertyreduction. This was followed by the second andthird country programmes, from 2001–2005 and2006–2010 respectively. To align with Uganda’simplementation of its National DevelopmentPlan, UNDP abridged the third countryprogramme by one year, from 2006–2010 to2006–2009. The second and third countryprogrammes are evaluated under this ADR.

The emphasis of the two country programmes underreview was primarily on strengthening nationalinstitutions’ capacities. The total programme deliveryfrom 2001 to 2008 was $92 million. The programmewas in partnership with the government at thenational level and was implemented throughgovernment agencies. Gender, HIV/AIDS, a rights- based approach and the environment wereaddressed as cross- cutting issues.

The second country programme (2001–2005)had two broad programme areas: governance andpoverty reduction. There were limited programmaticinterventions, and the focus was on upstreamsupport for aid coordination and capacity- building for policy and strategy formulation.Support was provided to strengthening govern-ment institutions, developing private enterprise,and sustainably utilizing and conserving theenvironment and natural resources. In the courseof the programme, UNDP prepared the Transitionto Recovery Programme in order to supportgovernment initiatives in recovery, resettlementand reintegration.

The third country programme (2006–2009)identified three areas of practice— poverty

reduction, democratic governance, and crisisprevention and recovery— with a strong emphasison capacity development and policy support.Under poverty reduction initiatives, support wasprovided for developing policies, monitoring theMDGs, and promoting microfinance and smalland medium- size enterprises. In addition,UNDP supported initiatives for sustainableutilization and conservation of the environmentand natural resources. In the area of governance,emphasis was on furthering democratic processes,strengthening institutions for enhanced transparencyand accountability, and fostering a rights- basedapproach. Specific attention was paid to post- conflict recovery aimed at supporting govern-ment initiatives in the creation of an enablingenvironment for peace and the resettlement,reintegration, security and socio- economicrecovery of conflict- affected populations andhost communities.

MAIN ADR CONCLUSIONS

UNDP Uganda has, over the past two programmingcycles, provided policy and technical support tothe government in order to further human andinstitutional development. Interventions in theareas of poverty reduction, governance, andconflict prevention and recovery were inalignment with national policy frameworks andthe United Nations Development AssistanceFramework. This evaluation concludes thatUNDP contributions to national developmentresults have been varied. While achievementshave been significant in some areas, it is too earlyto judge their contributions to results, because anumber of programmatic interventions are stillongoing. There were missed opportunities,particularly in maximizing contributions to areassuch as governance, and to a certain extent,interventions in conflict prevention and recovery,where UNDP is organizationally well positioned.

UNDP contributions have been significant interms of responsiveness to national prioritiesand needs. Although many short- term outcomeswere achieved, the contribution to long- termdevelopment results was moderate.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page viii

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

There were many positive features of the UNDPresponse in Uganda. Amid a competitive aidenvironment particularly predisposed to budgetsupport, UNDP was successful in maintaining itsrelevance. UNDP implemented programmes, largelythrough government agencies; responded tovarious requests for support from the governmentin development and post- conflict reconstruction;and supported the implementation of the PovertyEradication Action Plan and policies on post- conflict recovery and human security. Strongpartnerships were developed with key govern-ment agencies (e.g., the Inspector General ofGovernment, the National Planning Authority/African Peer Review Mechanism, the Office ofthe Prime Minister, the Parliament, the PublicProcurement and Disposal of Public AssetsAuthority, and the Uganda Human RightsCommission). UNDP demonstrated strongcommitment to post- conflict recovery, humansecurity and providing support to establishingdemocratic institutions at different levels. Therewere instances where government institutionsused UNDP support as start- up funds to leverageadditional donor resources.

Despite effectiveness in achieving the individualoutputs outlined in country programmedocuments, this evaluation concludes that theoverall development performance and effective-ness of the programme varied, particularly interms of the sustainability and measurability ofresults achieved. There were limited synergiesbetween various programme interventions.Intended outcomes were not fully realized andoften did not complement similar efforts by the government.

UNDP contributions to post- conflict recoveryhad mixed results. While contribution tostrengthening institutional mechanisms was afactor in achieving results, there were limitationsin informing a holistic approach to recovery.

UNDP has been responsive to post- conflictneeds and has made efforts to strengthen institu-tional capacities to better respond to post- conflict recovery and reconciliation. The support

to the Office of the Prime Minister (includingthe Amnesty Commission, the District DisasterManagement Committee and the Uganda MineAction Centre) enhanced the government’scapacity to respond to post- conflict recoveryneeds. UNDP support also contributed tooperationalizing the internally displaced personspolicy and facilitating their safe return. Inaddition, activities in human security throughsupport to reduction of small arms and lightweapons were promising in some areas, such asreducing weapon stockpiles.

Despite achievements in short- term outcomes,contributions to results in the conflict preventionand recovery programme were mixed. UNDP wasnot effective in implementing the programme ina complex and fast- moving operating environment,which required quick response and adaptability.Notwithstanding support to formulation ofpolicies for internally displaced persons anddisaster prevention and mitigation, UNDPengagement in northern Uganda policy discus-sions was not at the desired level. Furthermore,UNDP was not effective in enhancing linkagesbetween post- conflict recovery and longer- termnational development objectives.

Early recovery cluster coordination was carriedout in a complex post- conflict environment.UNDP was not effective as an early recoverycluster lead and missed opportunities forplaying a more proactive role in taking forward anearly recovery agenda. There were limitationson providing clarity on what early recoveryentails and on ensuring the participation ofgovernment and other agencies.

Uganda was one of the pilots for the humanitariancluster approach, along with the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Liberia and Pakistan.UNDP had the challenging task of leading theearly recovery cluster. While the scope of earlyrecovery (which included governance, infrastruc-ture and livelihood) was in many ways critical toareas in recovery and transition, UNDP was lesseffective in providing direction and leadership intaking forward the agenda of early recovery.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page ix

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx

Weak programme management and lack ofleadership at critical points constrained effectivecontributions to results. Programme manage-ment was constrained by several critical factors,including lack of adequate qualified staff, weaksynergies among different areas of theprogramme, and poor reporting and monitoring.

UNDP Uganda had intermittent senior leader-ship. During the period under review, there werea number of leadership changes and periodswhen senior management positions were notfilled. An evolving and complex humanitariansituation created additional responsibilities, and atcritical junctures, UNDP was under- capacitatedto respond to evolving demands. A related issuewas the lack of a human resource policy thatwould have systematically addressed staff- relatedissues. Lack of compatibility between programmeand human resource investment influencedprogress in achieving outcomes. Staff capacityand quality were not commensurate with thetasks UNDP had to fulfil. Sub- offices created inthe north lacked adequate staff and were notempowered to engage in project implementation.

Planning, documenting and monitoring wereweak across programme areas. There is a lack ofbaseline data, clear benchmarks or indicators toappraise progress and results. Concurrent analysisand monitoring of progress towards planneddevelopment results was also found to be lacking,and the adaption of the resultsbased managementsystem was weak. The programme was largelyactivity and output driven, and monitoring foroutcome indicators and linkages to broaderdevelopment processes was not available. Further,most interventions lacked a clear exit strategy,although the programme aimed to replicatesuccessful projects. Addressing sustainability waslargely found to be absent in intervention design.

Programme efficiency was undermined byspreading funds across many unrelated activitiesand by poor capacity of UNDP to disbursefunds in a timely manner.

Limited funds were spread across a wide range ofactivities, often on such a small scale that theycould not contribute to effective or sustainable

There were limitations on ensuring ownership ofcoordination by the government and participa-tion of concerned stakeholders.

National capacity development and institutionstrengthening are central to the UNDP programmeframework and are key components of UNDPcorporate goals. However, the operationalizationof capacity development has been less strategicand lacked a time- frame and exit strategy.UNDP did not position itself well in the contextof the prevalent budget support in Uganda.

Capacity development is a clearly recognizedprogramme priority of UNDP Uganda, althoughsome questions remain as to what this entails.Among government institutions, capacity develop-ment is associated with the sustainability of stateinstitutions through funding and technicalassistance. Uganda has large and continuousbudget support from the donor community, andthere is an expectation that capacity developmentshould be seen as a natural part of that process.There was no common understanding of theparameters of capacity development. Morespecifically, capacity development was not alwaysunderstood in terms of better governance,strengthening the capacities of institutions andleadership, and enhancing transparency and accountability.

Lack of a country- specific strategy on capacitydevelopment in many ways constrained theeffectiveness of UNDP support. Capacity develop-ment was not mainstreamed into UNDP- supported programmes. While there was acommitment by the country office to strengtheninstitutions and develop capacities, it lacked aclear vision as to what must be achieved. A widerange of state institutions have benefited fromUNDP support and consider themselves to haveincreased their capacity, mainly in terms ofincreased staff numbers. Interventions, however,remain at the individual level and are notinformed by a consistent capacity developmentapproach. Furthermore, there are no benchmarksto indicate progress towards outcomes andintended results, or to indicate the gradualdisengagement of UNDP support.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page x

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i

results. Rather than providing sufficient depthand longer- term commitment in fewer areas,UNDP was involved in a wide range of activities,and with the available evidence, it was notpossible to measure contribution to results.

Programme efficiency was also constrained bychallenges in the UNDP capacity to disbursefunds in a timely manner. Absorption capacitywas low in conflict prevention and recoveryinterventions, limiting programme effectivenessas well as limiting the implementation ofintended activities within the programme. Inmany ways, poor fund management underminedthe financial sustainability of programmes andminimized the possibility of additional funding.

The comparative advantage of UNDP inaddressing social development issues andpolicy was not fully realized. The efforts ofUNDP were not optimal in developingstrategic partnerships with internationalagencies and networks.

While UNDP has the potential to play a criticalrole in complementing budget support (by, forexample, providing policy and technical support),this was not fully optimized. UNDP programmesupport would have made better contributions toresults, had partnerships been developed withother agencies or had interventions been basedon a careful analysis of ongoing support to thegovernment from other agencies. UNDP did nothave a programme strategy in a context where 71percent of development cooperation is budgetsupport. Clearly thought- out interventions andpartnerships directed at addressing critical gapsin budget support, essential for strategicpositioning, were lacking.

The participation of non- governmental andcivil society organizations was not ensured inthe UNDP- supported programmes. In seekingpartnerships, UNDP largely overlooked civilsociety, non- governmental organizations and community- based organizations.

Uganda has a large number of non- governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and civil society organiza-tions (CSOs), and some of them have the

potential to complement government efforts indevelopment and post- conflict reconstruction.When responding to national priorities, UNDPdid not sufficiently develop partnerships withNGOs and CSOs or facilitate their engagementin development processes. There were limitedefforts to strengthen the capacities of NGOs.

The cross- cutting issues emphasized in the twoUNDP country programmes are relevant in thecontext of Uganda and within the framework ofnational development strategies. However, theintegration of cross- cutting issues acrossinterventions has been modest, both inprogramme design and in implementation.Similarly, the contribution was modest insupporting the government in furthering theintegration of cross- cutting issues.

The Government of Uganda has policies tosupport the integration of gender equality andaddressing HIV/AIDS into developmentplanning and budgeting. Though UNDP contri-butions to furthering government policies wereimportant from the standpoint of individualinterventions, there were limitations in enablingresults. UNDP support to poverty monitoringand MDG reporting was not effectively alignedwith government mechanisms. There werelimitations in using programme interventions inthe area of poverty reduction and sustainablelivelihoods to achievement of the MDGs.

Planning and implementing gender as a cross- cutting issue were not effective. While differentprojects took measures to include women asbeneficiaries, the programme lacked a systematicframework to carry out gender analysis in orderto guide programme design and to implement orto monitor progress in gender relations. UNDPmade important contributions in informinggovernment policy in addressing HIV/AIDSthrough policy studies. However, incorporatingHIV/AIDS as a cross- cutting issue in UNDPprogrammes was minimal. Environment andclimate change impact did not receive adequateattention either as a programme area or a cross- cutting issue, and linkages with poverty reductionand sustainable livelihoods appeared weak inboth design and implementation.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page xi

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i i

RECOMMENDATIONS

PROGRAMME STRATEGY AND APPROACH

UNDP interventions should support policyformulation and coordination in developmentand post- conflict recovery. Efforts must betaken to ensure that a large component of the programme entails a systematic approach to engaging in policy and technical support for implementation.

UNDP should be strategic both in developingpartnerships and in identifying policy areaswhere its support would complement ongoingdevelopment efforts.

Considering that donor assistance in Uganda islargely in the form of budget support, UNDPshould be strategic in both developing partner-ships and in identifying policy areas where itssupport will contribute to furthering developmentresults. Building on consultations and partner-ships with government and other developmentagencies, UNDP should ensure that programmesupport is aimed at addressing capacity, policyand advocacy issues related to regional disparitiesin poverty, strengthening accountability andtransparency in governance and in post- conflict recovery.

In approaching these partnerships, UNDPshould make sufficient efforts to clarify, to boththe government and the donor community, the nature of the support it can provide tocomplement budget support and efforts byvarious stakeholders. This should be clearlyoutlined in the country programme.

UNDP should enhance its support to attainingthe MDGs in order to address regional dispari-ties in poverty. UNDP should make a strongercommitment to address cross- cutting issues,particularly the MDGs, HIV/AIDS andgender. UNDP should consider supportingregional MDG reports.

Uganda is comfortably poised to achieve MDGtargets in most areas by 2015. However, areassuch as maternal health and regional disparities

in poverty remain a challenge. While UNDPshould continue its support to poverty and MDGmonitoring, adequate measures should be takento align efforts with the national povertymonitoring carried out by the Office of thePrime Minister. UNDP should be proactive inensuring the harmonization of national develop-ment targets with MDG targets in areas wherethe former are less ambitious than the latter. A related issue is addressing regional disparitiesin poverty and development. UNDP should payspecial attention in its forthcoming programmeto informing policy and practice related to these areas. Efforts were made in the ongoingprogramme to support district MDG reports.Considering the large number of districts inUganda, UNDP should instead considersupporting regional MDG reports.

In the forthcoming programme, UNDP hasidentified pro- poor policies for achieving growthwith equity as an area of support to the govern-ment. This includes capacity development for MDG- based planning. UNDP should ensureproper implementation of this importantdimension of poverty reduction support.

UNDP should also make stronger commitmentsto addressing cross- cutting issues, particularlygender and HIV/AIDS. In the forthcomingprogramme, UNDP should take sufficientmeasures to ensure that gender analysis informsprogramme design and implementation,including revisiting some of the existingprogramme plans. MDG reporting should befurther strengthened in order to provide gender- disaggregated analysis. Gender inequalitybecomes further aggravated amidst other vulner-abilities, such as conflict. UNDP should placespecific emphasis on the gender dimensions ofreconstruction and transition in the recoveryprogramme. In order to maximize results in thisarea, UNDP should strengthen partnerships withagencies that have similar interests.

Measures should be taken to systematically integrateHIV/AIDS issues into programme interventions.In the ongoing country programme, UNDPsupported a study to inform government policy

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page xii

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i i i

on HIV/AIDS. Given the increases in theprevalence rate of HIV/AIDS during the pasttwo years, similar efforts should be pursued in theforthcoming programme to further advocacy inthe area.

Given the importance of linkages betweensustainable environment and poverty reduction,UNDP should take specific measures to integrateenvironment and climate change adaptation asa cross- cutting issue across programmeinterventions, particularly in poverty reductionand disaster management interventions.

Considering the challenges of environmentalsustainability and climate change adaptation forUganda, further efforts are needed by UNDP tosupport reducing vulnerability to climate change- related disasters. In the ongoing programme,support was extended to disaster managementinitiatives, and the environment was included asa component of poverty reduction. Consideringthere are other agencies working on environmentalissues in Uganda, UNDP should identify areaswhere it can complement ongoing efforts andinform government practice and policy.

To make meaningful contributions to develop-ment results, UNDP should be strategic inusing its resources and reduce the number ofinterventions. UNDP should develop a fundmobilization strategy to support programmesin critical areas. This strategy should includeareas where UNDP would engage on a long- term basis.

Instead of being reactive to donor needs, UNDPshould put forth a clear plan of action, covering aminimum period of five years, in key areas ofprogramme intervention. During the ADR period,UNDP had carried out programme scoping forgovernance and privatesector support. This is astep in the right direction, and further measuresshould be taken to prepare strategy documentsfor these programme areas. In governance,UNDP has identified service delivery at the local level as one possible area of intervention.Other areas where UNDP has the potential to strengthen governance include enhancingtransparency and accountability mechanisms.

UNDP should revisit its northern Ugandaprogramme strategy and pay specific attention toinforming government policy regarding theintegration of northern Uganda developmentpriorities into the national development strategy.UNDP should focus on areas in northernUganda where support would be more meaning-ful and would complement ongoing efforts.

UNDP should reduce the number of smallinterventions that do not have substantialrelevance in terms of contribution to developmentresults. Instead, it should focus on fewer interven-tions, over a longer period of time, which wouldenhance development results. UNDP needs toassess where its efforts can have the most effectand where corporate capacities can be harnessed,and then align its activities accordingly.

UNDP should continue advocating and supporting peace- building initiatives together with interven-tions pertaining to human security. These initiativesshould include support to demining and to smallarms and light weapons collection and destruction.UNDP should support national priorities underthe Peace, Recovery and Development Plan forNorthern Uganda through proactive advocacyand support to local coordination mechanisms inthe four identified northern regions.

UNDP should no longer work on intervention- specific pilot projects. The pilot approachshould only be used for integrated approachesat the district level and with interventions thatare both mutually reinforcing across practiceareas and are linked by measurable andcommon objectives.

This will ensure that interventions remainfocused and are conducive to creating substantialresults. In addition, it will avoid leading to adispersion of resources along uncharteredprogrammatic lines with no demonstratedcontribution to MDG or development priorities.

A focus on districts as programme entry points will allow UNDP to carry out initialparticipatory baselines and discuss expectedresults with stakeholders, so that a districtmonitoring and evaluation plan is a reflection ofthe participatory process.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page xiii

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i v

UNDP should clarify what is intended bycapacity development and outline supportparameters. There should be a clear frameworkfor implementing and monitoring capacitydevelopment activities.

A core area of UNDP support involves develop-ing the capacities of national institutions. Forcapacity development interventions, UNDPshould develop clear parameters and timelines,and embed them within the programme strategyfor each area. While there should be periodicmonitoring of interventions’ progress, UNDPshould also take sufficient measures to ensurethat all concerned stakeholders have a commonunderstanding of these strategies.

UNDP has been consistent in implementingprogrammes through the government, which is essential for developing national capacities. For effective implementation of developmentprogrammes, further efforts should be made tostrengthen the administrative and financemechanisms of government partners.

UNDP should define the role it can play incoordination and more systematically engage invarious coordination mechanisms in the country.

UNDP should be more proactive in its engage-ment of sector working groups and in the coordi-nation mechanisms on northern Ugandadevelopment, governance, poverty reduction and privatesector support. There are several PovertyEradication Action Plan/National DevelopmentStrategy working groups, in addition to sectorgroups and donor coordination mechanisms.UNDP should actively engage in areas that arerelevant to its programme agenda and where it isorganizationally well placed to contribute. Thereshould be more efforts to support policy and researchpapers in key UNDP areas of development.Sufficient resources should be allocated for suchactivities, and UNDP should ensure that senior- level staff participates in coordination meetings.

UNDP should be more proactive in advocatingthe human development dimensions of growthand poverty reduction. UNDP should extend

continuous support to advocacy tools such asHuman Development Reports, including takingsteps to support regional Human DevelopmentReports in the forthcoming programme.

Uganda has good statistics on the poverty andsocial sectors. To provide effective feedback topolicy makers, UNDP should provide morestructured information on key developmentissues, as UNDP has not yet identified or filledstrategic gaps in this area. National HumanDevelopment Reports are a useful advocacy tool,because they provide alternative perspectives onkey development issues, inform development andtransition processes, and complement analysis ofthe poverty and social sectors. It is suggested thatUNDP support a Human Development Reporton linkages among post- conflict reconstruction,national development strategies; and genderissues in development. To be useful to develop-ment stakeholders, the reports should be of highquality and credibility.

UNDP should proactively explore the possibilityof supporting Regional Human DevelopmentReports, which will complement the analysis ofthe poverty and social sectors. This will alsoprovide an opportunity to address some of the region- specific issues in human development.

UNDP should strengthen its partnerships withNGOs and CSOs in engaging in developmentand taking a proactive advocacy role. Theagency should support measures to facilitatelinkages among the government, the privatesector and NGOs in engaging in post- conflictand development issues.

The African Peer Review Mechanism processhas shown that civil society can play an importantrole in informing development planning. UNDPshould play a supportive role in furthering therole of NGOs and CSOs in development planning.Wherever possible, UNDP should strengthenthe capacities of NGOs and CSOs to be able toplay an effective role in development processes. Aclear strategy should also be formulated forworking with NGOs in order to strengthen theirpublic accountability role with government.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/2/09 2:48 PM Page xiv

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x v

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

UNDP should strengthen its presence at thelocal level. The capacities of area offices shouldbe further strengthened and empowered inorder to ensure that interventions play aneffective role in programme implementation.

Strengthening the effectiveness of theprogramme— particularly in supporting inter-ventions in northern Uganda— and strengthen-ing service delivery at the local level both requirestrong area offices. UNDP should take sufficientmeasures to improve the staff capacity of the areaoffices and ensure the offices are adequatelyempowered to play an effective role in theimplementation of programme interventions.Field offices should also strengthen linkagesbetween government and non- state actors indevelopment intervention. Field office staffshould be experienced in governance and povertyreduction issues, so that the office can perform as

a UNDP office rather than being limited toconflict prevention and recovery issues.

UNDP should substantially strengthen theresults focus of the country programme. Thisshould include a strong programme manage-ment system and a monitoring and evaluationframework, and there should be optimal use ofthe resultsbased management system.

For improved contribution to development results,UNDP should take urgent measures to strengthenprogramme reporting tools and systems. Results- based management needs to be strengthened, andin the forthcoming programme UNDP shouldinclude systematic monitoring of outcomeindicators. Baseline information should beprepared for all outputs and outcomes. UNDPshould strengthen gender analysis and gender-disaggregated data for all interventions. Adequatehuman resources and funds should be allocatedfor monitoring and evaluation of the programme.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page xv

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page xvi

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

1.1 RATIONALE FOR THE EVALUATION

The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) has supported development initiativesand policy in Uganda for more than 30 years. Thefirst structured country programme wasimplemented in 1997. Two country programmesfollowed during 2001–2005 and 2006–2010(which was abridged to 2009) as part of theUnited Nations Development AssistanceFrameworks (UNDAF) for the same period.1

This Assessment of Development Results(ADR) evaluates the two country programmesduring from 2001 to 2009.

In the past decade, Uganda has made considerableprogress in socio- economic and human develop-ment. The Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP),the periodically revised national development frame-work, aims to reduce absolute poverty to at least10 percent of the population by 2017. UNDPand several other development agencies havecontributed towards PEAP implementation.

Uganda is currently transitioning from the decade- long PEAP strategy to a NationalDevelopment Plan (NDP). Expected to befinalized this year, the NDP seeks to address longer- term goals of enhancing growth, employ-ment and prosperity. To align with the NDP time- frame, the UN and UNDP abridged theirrespective UNDAF and country programmes byone year and are in the process of concludingthem in 2009. The UN and UNDP Uganda arealso developing the new UNDAF and countryprogramme, a process that will be informed bythis ADR.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The UNDP programme in Uganda was selectedfor an ADR in 2009 following a request fromUNDP Uganda and the Regional Bureau forAfrica. Led by the UNDP Evaluation Office, anADR is an independent evaluation that capturesand demonstrates evaluative evidence of UNDPcontribution to national development results. AnADR seeks to ensure the substantive accounta-bility of UNDP as an organization and substan-tiates key issues of support to programming atthe countryoffice level.

The overall goals of the Uganda ADR were to:

� Provide substantive support to theAdministrator’s accountability function inreporting to the Executive Board;

� Support greater UNDP accountability tonational stakeholders and partners in theprogramme country;

� Serve as a means of quality assurance forUNDP interventions in Uganda; and

� Contribute to learning at corporate, regionaland country levels.

The ADR reviewed the UNDP programme inUganda and its contribution solving nationaldevelopment challenges. The evaluation coveredthe current and previous country programmes(2006–2009 and 2001–2005). Although moreemphasis was placed on interventions of theongoing country programme, efforts were madeto examine the contribution of UNDP support

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1. Unless specifically required, the UNDP country programme framework is referred as the ‘country programme’ throughoutthis report. This is to avoid the confusion multiple references to the country programme framework (such as country programme, country programme document, country cooperation framework and country programme action plan) maycause to readers not familiar with UNDP.

f_UgandaADR_txt.qxd:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:13 PM Page 1

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N2

during the previous programme cycle. The ADRincluded all the thematic areas of UNDP contri-bution to development results, although not allprojects were included for evaluation.

This evaluation has two main components: ananalysis of UNDP contribution to developmentresults and strategic positioning of UNDP. TheUganda ADR entailed a comprehensive reviewof the UNDP programme portfolio (2001–2005and 2006–2009), including an evaluation of:UNDP contribution in terms of key interven-tions; progress in achieving outcomes for theongoing country programme; factors influencingresults (e.g., UNDP positioning and capacities,partnerships and policy support); achievements,progress and UNDP contribution in keythematic areas (both in policy and advocacy) and cross- cutting areas, as well as their relationshipwith the MDGs and the UNDAF; and keychallenges and strategies for future interventions.

The evaluation of UNDP strategic positioningwas carried out from the perspective of thecountry’s and agency’s development priorities.This process comprised an analysis of: theUNDP niche within Uganda’s development andpolicy space; strategies UNDP Uganda used tostrengthen its position in local developmentspace and to create a position for the organizationin its core practice areas; and policy support andadvocacy initiatives of the UNDP programme vis- à- vis other development stakeholders.

Recognizing that UNDP macro- level interven-tions comprised a number of different interven-tions in different regions, the ADR applied apurposive sampling in selecting the geographicalarea for coverage. The selection of field areas tovisit also took into consideration regional dispar-ities in human development indicators.Interventions that had been ongoing since thefirst country framework were more evaluable forresults, while those started during the past three

years— such as those addressing crisis preventionand recovery— were less evaluable. The evalua-tion team did not visit the Karamoja regionbecause of security- related reasons.

1.3 METHOD

Led by the UNDP Evaluation Office, anindependent team of consultants carried out theADR. The four- member evaluation teamcomprised an international consultant, twonational consultants and an Evaluation Officetask manager.

1.3.1 PREPARATORY MISSION

Drawing on ADR methodology guidelines2 andbroader UNDP evaluation policy,3 this ADR isbased on the objectives and scope identifiedthrough preliminary consultations during thescoping mission and a subsequent evaluabilityreview of the programme. The evaluability reviewappraised programme objectives and strategies,duration of the programme, available monitoringdata, evaluation reports and external studies.Evaluation questions were defined throughstakeholder consultations carried out during theevaluation’s preliminary phase. In order to assessdevelopment results, the ADR used the set ofstandard UNDP evaluation criteria— includingeffectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, relevanceand responsiveness.4

1.3.2 MAIN ADR MISSION

Prior to the main mission, the ADR team heldplanning meetings. The first took place in NewYork and consulted representatives of theEvaluation Office and relevant UNDP bureaus(Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery,Bureau for Development Policy and RegionalBureau for Africa). The second meeting, withUNDP Uganda, refined and finalized the evalua-tion design and work plan. A detailed review ofdocuments was carried out by the team, which

2. UNDP, ‘Assessment of Development Results: Key Elements of Methodology’, Evaluation Office, New York, NY, 2002.3. UNDP, ‘Evaluation Policy’, Evaluation Office, New York, NY, 2006.4. See section 1.4 and Annex 1 for further discussion of evaluation criteria.



structured interviews were used for collectingprimary data from individual respondents (seeBox 1). The ADR team used a standardizedchecklist to guide interviews with specificcategories of informants, and, in order to system-atically analyse information, used summarysheets to collate interview information.Interviews with stakeholders directly involvedwith— or aware of— the UNDP programmefocused on programme performance. In a broadercontext, interviews addressed programme percep-tion, policy issues and development agencies’response. Following stakeholder analysis duringthe scoping mission, the ADR team identifiedinstitutions and individuals to be interviewedduring the main mission. This list was continu-ously augmented in response to new leads.

included UNDAF and country programmedocuments, project documents, evaluationreports and country papers.5

UNDP- supported programmes in sevendistricts— Bushenyi, Gulu, Hoima, Kabale,Kitgum, Lira and Masindi— were selected for field- based consultation. Priority was given todistricts where interventions spanned multipleprogramme areas and both programme cycles,and to districts with crisis prevention andrecovery programmes.

1.3.3 STAKEHOLDERS AND KEY INFORMANTS

Stakeholder consultations were carried out duringthe scoping and main missions (14–22 Februaryand 6–24 April 2009, respectively). Semi-

Box 1. Evaluation question checklist

Stakeholder type Main evaluation questions

Government Did UNDP programmes reflect national priorities? How responsive was UNDP to thechanging priorities and needs of Uganda? How do you see the role of UNDP as acontributor to national development? How do you see the role of UNDP in policysupport? What were the most significant and successful UNDP interventions and why?Are there areas where UNDP should intervene further or improve its performance?How do you see the approach followed by UNDP in implementing programmes inUganda? What arrangements have been made to ensure the sustainability of resultsachieved with UNDP support? What are the existing coordination mechanisms? Howeffective has UNDP been in coordinating with others?

Non-governmentalorganizations and civil society

What are your views on development needs in Uganda and its progress towardsdevelopment? Has UNDP effectively contributed to improving the situation inUganda? What was the most significant UNDP contribution? Do you participate inUNDP-supported projects or consultations? How effective were such projects orconsultations? What could have been done better or differently in order to improveeffectiveness and better respond to needs? Have you benefited from UNDP-supportedtraining or capacity-building?

Multilateral andbilateral developmentpartners, includingUN-system agenciesand internationalfinancial institutions

What are your views on progress towards human development in Uganda? What areyour views of the UNDP role and performance, including effectiveness, efficiency,relevance and strategic role? What are the major UNDP comparative advantages inthis country? What has been the major value addition of UNDP? How could UNDPhave been more effective? What coordination mechanisms are in place, and whatcoordination role does UNDP play?

Programme beneficiaries

Has your situation improved due to development projects implemented orsupported by UNDP? Did interventions correspond to your needs? Was the supporttimely and well targeted? What did UNDP do well? Which interventions did not workwell? What could have been done better? How do you see the future? Will you beable to continue your activities once direct UNDP support ceases?

5. See Annex 4 for a list of documents consulted.


C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N4

To maximize time and resources, the evaluationteam carried out simultaneous interviews withmultiple stakeholders. In addition to UNDPmanagement and local programme staff, over 150individuals participated in interviews during thecourse of this ADR. There were, however, limita-tions in securing interviews with certainstakeholder groups. Some donors and seniorgovernment officials remained unavailable to theevaluation team.

The ADR was a transparent and participatoryprocess that took measures to encompass alldevelopment stakeholders in Uganda. Individualsand groups consulted included: UNDP programmebeneficiaries, donors and implementing partners,such as UN- system bodies and other develop-ment agencies; senior officials and staff of centralgovernment institutions, technical staff of keyline ministries, district political leaders, and chiefaccounting officers and staff at the local govern-ment level; and representatives of the privatesector, civil society, and national and interna-tional non- governmental organizations (NGOs).The assessment also took into consideration theperceptions of key informants who were notdirectly involved with UNDP programmes.6

Evaluation findings, conclusions and recommen-dations were presented at a stakeholder workshopheld in Kampala on 17 July 2009. The workshopprovided an opportunity to discuss the findingsand conclusions with a wide range of develop-ment stakeholders7 and to further sharpen the recommendations.

1.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The ADR criteria used to evaluate UNDPcontribution to results in Uganda includedrelevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainabilityand responsiveness. Partnership, equity, coordi-nation and national ownership were evaluated aspart of each criterion.

Effectiveness was assessed by an appreciation ofthe extent to which specific objectives havebeen— or are expected to be— achieved, takinginto account external factors that could haveaffected implementation.

Efficiency was determined by examining thequalitative and quantitative outputs achieved as aresult of inputs.

Sustainability was evaluated based on a consid-ered assessment of whether UNDP has been ableto develop the permanent structures, proceduresand professional capacity that national institu-tions will need in order to continue performingexpected services.

Relevance was assessed based on whether UNDPinterventions responded to the development andhumanitarian needs and priorities identified byvarious stakeholders.

Responsiveness was assessed according to theextent and timeliness of the programme’s responseto development needs, including factors such as howUNDP anticipated and responded to significantchanges in the national development context.

1.5 LIMITATIONS

Several limitations affected the quality of theevaluation process.

The ADR scoping mission was undertakenconcurrently with two other programme- scopingmissions, and during the main mission, theprogramme staff was involved in the preparationof the forthcoming country programme. Whileappreciating the need to have different types ofassessments to inform preparation of the UNDAFand country programme, managing the two wasnot easy for the country office staff. In addition, anumber of donor representatives and senior govern-ment officers were not consulted because of poororganizing of meetings by the country office.

6. See Annex 5 for a list of persons consulted. 7. See Annex 5 for stakeholders who participated in the workshop.



Information management of UNDP Uganda wasweak, leading to delays in providing criticalinformation needed for ADR analysis. At thetime of the ADR, the country office underwent a security- mandated evacuation, which also causeddelays in the availability of data. In addition,inadequate monitoring of intended outcomes wasamong the most significant limitations of theADR process. Baseline information crucial for anevaluation of results was lacking for mostprogrammes, poverty reduction initiatives inparticular, and similar limitations existed inmonitoring information at the output level.Consequently, this evaluation relied largely oninterviews and midterm and outcome evalua-tions. The country office carried out externalevaluations of projects and outcomes of all majorprogramme areas. While such evaluations’

generally high quality allowed them to form thebasis for this ADR, their focus and approachvaried. It was not always possible to assess resultsbased solely on this information.

The ADR team noted that outcomes in thecountry programme were ambitiously stated and,given the resources invested in the interventions,too broad to be achieved. In addition, in theongoing country programme UNDP reduced theoriginal 19 outcomes to 10, which posed challengesin programme management. The revised outcomesdid not adequately reflect the entire range ofresults or the projects that were carried out.Clarity of project objectives, indicators andoverall contributions to goals was diminished. A similar lack of clarity was also evident amongproject outputs and outcome indicators.



C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L C O N T E X T 7

Uganda attained independence in 1962, and theParliament became a constituent assembly in1967. The decade that followed had regimes that were less democratic and were marked byinsurgencies and liberation struggles. The liberationmovement led by the National Resistance Army(NRA), perceived as an indigenous struggle,succeeded in forming a government in 1986. Theelections followed extensively participatory constitution- making processes that took placebetween 1993 and 1995, eventually leading to the1995 revised Constitution. NRA- led governmentwas a non- party, all- inclusive Movement Systemof government, reinforced by the 1995 promulga-tion of a revised Constitution. In 2005, the single- party system of the NRA Government began thetransformation into a multiparty system. The2006 presidential and parliamentary electionsmarked Uganda’s entry into multiparty politicaldispensation, which is considered a landmark inthe history of Uganda.

The armed conflict between the Government ofUganda and the rebel Lord’s Resistance Armylasted for over two decades and resulted in loss oflife and property and the displacement of peoplein northern Uganda. The Lord’s Resistance Armycivil war affected mainly the Acholi8 and Lango9

subregions, and some parts of the West Nile andTeso subregions. In addition, several other now- defunct rebel groups (e.g., the West Nile BankFront and the Uganda National Rescue Front)operated in parts of northern Uganda andcontributed to destabilization and displacement.The prospects for peace increased after thecessation of hostilities agreement, negotiated inJuba in 2006.

2.1 STRUCTURE OF THE STATE

Uganda has been a fully independent andsovereign state since 1962. The 1995 Constitutionestablished Uganda as a republic with executive,legislative and judicial branches. The Constitutionprovides for a President to head the executivebranch, to be elected every five years. Legislativepowers are vested in the Parliament.10 TheUgandan judiciary consists of Magistrate’sCourts, High Courts, Courts of Appeals and theSupreme Court.

The Ministry of Local Government overseeslocal governments’ administration. Uganda isdivided into 80 districts, spread across fouradministrative regions: Central, Eastern, Northernand Western. The number of districts has almost

Chapter 2

NATIONAL CONTEXT

Box 2. Political profile of Uganda

Number of political parties: 33

Number of registered voters (2006 elections):10,450,788

Political milestones

1994 Election of the Constituent Assembly

1995 Formulation of the Constitution

1996 Presidential, Parliamentary and LocalCouncil elections

2001 Presidential, Parliamentary and LocalCouncil elections

2005 Referendum on multiparty political system

2006 Most recent general elections; Ugandaenters multiparty political dispensation

Source: UNDP Uganda Web site.

8. Acholi subregion comprises the Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader districts.9. Lango subregion comprises the Amolatar, Apac, Dokolo, Lira and Oyam districts.10. The eighth Parliament comprises 332 members.


C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L C O N T E X T 8

doubled since 2003, and eight more were addedin 2006. Each district is divided into sub- districts, counties, sub- counties, parishes andvillages. There are urban councils, whichcomprise municipal councils, municipal divisionsand town councils. In addition, there are county,parish and village councils.

The districts in Uganda operate under delegatedrather than devolved authority from the centralgovernment. They have limited local revenue,and the creation of central government- appointed chief accounting officers represents adecentralization of decision- making. The risk ofthese arrangements is a weakened sense ofresponsibility and accountability for good servicedelivery of local government representativestowards their constituents.11

2.2 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

The majority of Uganda’s population (86percent) lives in rural areas. In addition, thecountry has a large proportion of youngerpopulation, which has increased in the past years.The proportion of children (those under 18 yearsold) has increased from 51 percent in 1969 to 56percent in 2002, and 49 percent of the populationis under 15 years of age.12 More than half of Uganda’spopulation (about 51 percent) is female.13

Uganda’s population growth is among thehighest in the world: Uganda has an estimatedannual population growth rate of 3.3 percenthigher than the sub- Saharan average of 2.4 percent.Uganda’s 2007 population was 28.4 million, a 70percent increase from 1991 levels.14 The estimated mid- year population for 2008 was over 31.2 million.

If current demographic trends continue, thepopulation is projected to double again by 2030.

The population growth rate is attributed to ahigh fertility rate (7.1 for rural women and 4.4 for urban women15), low prevalence of familyplanning methods and young age of women atmarriage (18 years of age on average). Fertilitylevels have remained high over the past threedecades, with a rate of about seven children perwoman.16 The fertility rate is higher in rural areascompared to the urban areas.

While there has been a general improvement inmortality levels, the rate of decline of infant and under- five mortality has been a matter forconcern. The infant mortality rate declined from122 to 75 deaths per 1,000 live births between1991 and 2006. Over the same period, under- fivemortality declined from 203 to 137 deaths per1,000 live births.17

2.3 ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT

In 2007, Uganda reported a gross domestic product(GDP) of $11.2 billion. Over the past 20 years,GDP growth has been impressive. Uganda is oneof the fastest growing African economies, withsustained growth averaging 7.8 percent since 2000.These recent high rates of growth have beensustained primarily by the rise of a dynamic servicesector, which accounted for 45 percent of GDPin 2007 (see Table 1 and Figure 1 for trends). 18

Although agricultural output has been decreasingas a percentage of the economy in relation to theservice and industry sectors (see Figure 1), the

11. Oxford Policy Management, ‘Independent Evaluation of Uganda’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)’, FinalSynthesis Report, July 2008.

12. Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’, Bureau of Statistics, 2009.13. Ibid.14. Government of Uganda, ‘State of the Environment Report for Uganda 2006–2007’, National Environment

Management Authority.15. UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report: Rediscovering Agriculture for Human Development’, 2007; Government

of Uganda, ‘Ugandan Demographic and Health Survey’, Bureau of Statistics, 2006.16. Government of Uganda, ‘Ugandan Demographic and Health Survey’, Bureau of Statistics, 2006.17. Ibid.18. International Monetary Fund, ‘World Economic Outlook 2008’.


9C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L C O N T E X T

Table 1. Expenditure on GDP at constant (2002) prices, percentage change, calendar years

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total GDP at market prices 5.8 10.0 7.0 8.2 8.3

Final consumption expenditure 3.5 7.5 10.9 3.5 9.4

Household final consumption expenditure 3.4 8.1 12.3 4.6 10.1

Government final consumption expenditure 3.7 4.5 3.7 -2.7 4.8

Gross capital formation 11.9 20.7 11.0 15.3 -0.2

Fixed capital formation 13.8 20.2 11.0 15.4 -0.2

Changes in inventories 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net exports -1.8 10.9 49.2 -8.9 -3.1

Exports 20.9 21.5 -6.3 48.2 38.1

Goods, freight on board 18.5 21.5 0.2 61.8 46.3

Services 26.2 21.6 -19.9 12.8 7.6

less Imports 9.6 16.8 17.2 17.4 20.9

Goods, freight on board 6.9 15.2 17.8 24.3 27.1

Services 16.0 20.3 16.0 2.2 4.5

Source: Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’, Bureau of Statistics, 2009.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AdjustmentsServices

IndustryAgriculture, forestry and fishing

2008–20092007–20082006–20072005–20062004–2005

Figure 1. GDP by economic activity at constant (2002) prices, percentage share, fiscal years

Per

cen

t (%

)

Source: Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’, Bureau of Statistics, 2009.


C H A P T E R 2 . N A T I O N A L C O N T E X T 1 0

agricultural sector continues to support anestimated 80 percent of the population.19

Additionally, agriculture products comprise alarge portion (approximately 85 percent) ofUganda’s foreign exchange earnings.20 Targetedinterventions have seen significant improvementsin crop yields, though subsistence farmingaccounts for over half of all agriculture produc-tion. Because of the dependence on agriculture,human welfare indices are very sensitive toinstabilities in the sector that stem from factorssuch as volatile weather conditions or price fallsin key commodities (e.g., coffee or fish).

In 2005 and 2006, 70 percent of the workingpopulation was engaged in agriculture andmainly self- employed. Compared to industry,agriculture employed 73 percent of the workingpopulation, and by occupation, 70 percent of theworking population was agriculture and fisheryworkers.21 The agricultural sector has grownslower than the overall economy. Majorchallenges facing Uganda include increasing itsagricultural productivity and improving itsphysical infrastructure. Growth in Uganda hasnot led to the creation of sufficient non- agricultural employment opportunities. Uganda’sburgeoning industry sector accounted for 8percent of total employment, and the servicessector accounted for 22 percent.

With an increasing population density, arableland is expected to become scarce in the comingyears. Given that the bulk of the population isdependent on the agriculture sector, developmentof this sector’s performance is considered key tomeeting poverty reduction goals. For this reason,government policy since 2001 has focused onincreasing agricultural production and productivity,transforming subsistence agriculture to commercialagriculture for increasing household incomes andcreating non- farm employment opportunities.

2.4 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Largely due to improved political stability,Uganda experienced impressive and sustainedeconomic growth over the last two decades(notwithstanding the northern Uganda conflict).The uninterrupted growth and focused govern-ment policy under the PEAP facilitated signifi-cant gains in human development. Uganda is ontrack to attaining several MDGs, and significantprogress has been made in the areas of eradicationof extreme poverty, universal primary education,gender equity and HIV/AIDS.

In 1997, the government implemented its firstPEAP, an overarching national framework forpoverty eradication. The Plan was subsequentlyrevised in 2000, resulting in PEAP II(2000–2001 to 2003–2004), which spelled outfour pillars for focused interventions: creating anenabling environment for sustainable economicgrowth and structural transformation; promotinggood governance and security; increasing the abilityof the poor to raise incomes; and enhancing thequality of life of the poor. The Plan was revisedagain in 2004, resulting in the formulation ofPEAP III (2004–2005 to 2007–2008). PEAP III,with slightly modified national priorities,underlined five pillars for focused interventions:economic management; enhancing production,competitiveness and incomes; ensuring security,conflict resolution and disaster preparedness;good governance; and promoting humandevelopment. During the PEAP period, Ugandahas made significant improvements in economicgrowth, reduced poverty, restored security and anincreased confidence in the government’scapacity to make a difference.22 Building on thissuccess requires deepening reforms and capitaliz-ing on new opportunities for human andeconomic development.

19. UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report: Rediscovering Agriculture for Human Development’, 2007.20. Ibid.21. Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’, Bureau of Statistics, 2009.22. Oxford Policy Management, ‘Independent Evaluation of Uganda’s poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)’, Final

Synthesis Report, July 2008.



The PEAP was seen to have limitations in aligningwith the sector working groups approach.Furthermore, there were mixed results in aligningthe PEAP with the Medium- Term ExpenditureFramework and MDG outcomes. After imple-menting the PEAP over the past decade, theNational Planning Authority is leading thepreparation of the NDP in order to achieve‘Growth, Employment and Prosperity’. Theobjectives of the NDP are to: increase householdincomes; enhance the quality and availability ofgainful employment; improve the stock andquality of economic and trade infrastructure;increase access to quality social services; promoteinnovation and competitive industries; harnessnatural resources and the environment forsustainable development; and strengthen goodgovernance and improve human security.23

In order to address the specific reconstructionand recovery needs of conflict- affected northernUganda (e.g., large- scale population displace-ment, return and resettlement), the governmentlaunched the Peace Recovery and DevelopmentPlan (PRDP) for the period of 2007 to 2010. ThePRDP has the specific objectives of consolidatingstate authority, rebuilding and empoweringcommunities, revitalizing the economy, and peace- building and reconciliation. The PRDP isestimated to cost $606 million, of which 30percent is to be provided by the Government ofUganda and 70 percent by donors. Theimplementation of the PRDP had yet to begin.

The Karamoja Integrated Disarmament andDevelopment Programme (KIDDP),24 a medium- term framework, was devised to contribute tohuman security and to promote conditions forrecovery and development in the Karamojaregion.25 The KIDDP harmonizes variousdevelopment interventions of the government

(through medium- term sector budget frameworkprocesses) and support from bilateral andmultilateral development agencies and interna-tional and national NGOs. The KIDDP buildson the Karamoja component in the PRDP. Theoverall goal of the KIDDP is to contribute tohuman security and promote conditions forrecovery and development in Karamoja.

2.5 POVERTY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

According to the ‘Uganda National HumanDevelopment Report 2007’, the country hasmade significant progress with regard to socialand economic development. This is reflected inits Human Development Index (HDI) increasingfrom 0.488 in 2003 to 0.581 for 2005–2006. In2007, Uganda had an average per capita incomeof $300,26 and there was a decline in poverty rates.Although progress in the improvement ofeconomic growth and life expectancy indicatorscan be clearly seen, regional disparities in levelsof human development continue to be a concern.In 2007, the central region continued to have thehighest HDI of 0.650, followed by the easternregion with an index of 0.586, while the westernregion registered 0.564.27 Comparatively, northernUganda’s HDI was significantly lower at 0.478,owing primarily to the residual effects of conflictin the region.

Uganda’s stable macroeconomic climate,sustained high growth, and coordinated povertyeradication strategy under the PEAP contributedto poverty reduction during the 1990s and early2000s. According to the ‘State of UgandaPopulation Report in 2007’, the national income- poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in1992–1993 to 34 percent in 2002–2003, with afurther decline to 31 percent in 2005–2006.28

23. ‘Formulation of the 5-Year National Development Plan (NDP)’, Progress Report, December 2008-March 2009.24. Government of Uganda, ‘Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme, Creaing Conditions for

Promoting Human Security and Recovery in Karamoja (2007/2008–2009/2010)’, January 2007.25. Ibid.26. Government of Uganda, ‘Uganda Demographic and Health Survey’, 2007.27. Ibid.28. Government of Uganda, ‘State of Uganda Population Report in 2007’, Bureau of Statistics.



Poverty is more widespread in rural than urbanareas, and the rate of poverty reduction withinrural communities has been high. In rural areas,the corresponding decline was from 60 percent to42 percent, and a further decline to 34 percent. Inurban areas, it was 28 percent in 1992–1993 to 12percent in 2002–2003 to an increase of 2 percentin 2005–2006.29 Poverty rates remain the highestin the northern region, where between 2005 and2006, 68 percent of the population was classifiedas income- poor. Poverty levels in the northernregion have shown very little improvementduring the past decade.30

Some of the primary causes of povertyhighlighted in the PEAP and other governmentstrategy documents include low agriculturalproductivity, low price levels and limited access toappropriate production technologies, markets,finance and infrastructure. The 2005–2006Uganda National Household Survey indicated ageneral decline in inequality between 2002 and2006 and a decline of the Gini coefficient from0.43 to 0.41.31 Significant gender disparities inpoverty trends are attributed mainly to thepredominance of women in the agriculturalsector (91.5 percent of women wage workers arein the agricultural sector),32 low levels of femaleliteracy, limited access to productive resources,unemployment and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

There have been positive trends in progresstowards achieving several MDG targets, with theexception of infant mortality and maternal healthindicators (see Table 2 and Annex 2). AchievingMDG targets in these two areas poses severalchallenges, and targeted government interven-tions have made limited improvements. As of

2006, life expectancy at birth was 50.5 years.33

Maternal health indicators generally remainedpoor in the last two decades. The maternalmortality rate remained constant from 1995 to2000, at about 505 deaths per 100,000 live births,and then decreased slightly to the current rate ofapproximately 435 deaths per 100,000 livebirths.34 Given current trends, it is less likely thatUganda will meet either the maternal health or child- mortality reduction MDG targets.

The PEAP evaluation outlined that, in order tomeet the government’s target to reduce absolutepoverty to below 10 percent of the population by 2017, the average economic growth rate ofabout 5.6 percent over the past five years needs to increase to 7 percent.35 The slowdown ineconomic development, coupled with rapidpopulation growth, indicates that underemploy-ment will pose serious challenges to povertyalleviation strategies. Additionally, the ‘UgandaMDG Progress Report 2007’ highlights thatmany households remain vulnerable to poverty.The report indicates that there is risk of anincrease in incidence of poverty, because of the lack of a diversified economic base, highvulnerability to commodity price volatility, smalllevels of asset ownership and few non- agricultural job opportunities.

In education, great strides have been made inproviding universal primary education.36 Theintroduction of universal primary education in1997 led to a 132 percent increase in grossenrolment, from 3.1 million children in 1996 to7.2 million in 2006.37 The 2005–2006 NationalHousehold Survey shows that net enrolment was

29. Ibid.30. Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’, Bureau of Statistics, 2009.31. Ibid.32. UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report: Rediscovering Agriculture for Human Development’, 2007.33. UNDP, ‘Human Development Index 2008’. 34. Ibid.35. Oxford Policy Management, ‘Independent Evaluation of Uganda’s poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)’, Final

Synthesis Report, July 2008.36. Ibid.37. UNDP, ‘Millennium Development Goals: Uganda’s Progress Report’, 2007.



Table 2. Progress towards achieving Millennium Development Goals

Goals and indicators Progress Target

2000 2003 2005–2006 2015

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Poverty head count 33.80 37.70 31.10 28.00

Poverty gap 10.00 11.30 8.70

Underweight moderate and severe 22.80 20.40 12.50

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Net enrolment ratio in primary education 84.00 90.00 84.00 100.00

Literacy rate, 15–24 years old 78.80 80.00 84.00

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Ratio of girls to boys in primary education 0.99 0.99 0.96 1.00

Ratio of girls to boys in secondary education 0.79 0.82 1.00

Ratio of girls to boys in tertiary education 0.55 1.00

Ratio of literate women to men, 15–24 years old 0.84 0.90 0.92 1.00

Proportion of seats held by women in Parliament 19.00 25.00 50.00

Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector 39.20 28.2 50.00

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Under–five mortality (per 100,00 live births) 152.00 137.00 56.00

Infant mortality rate 88.40 76.00 31.00

Proportion of 1-year year-old children immunized against measles 56.80 68.10 90.00

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) 505.00 435.00 131.00

Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel 39.00 41.10 90.00

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

HIV/AIDS orphans (thousands) 884.00

HIV/AIDS prevalence among 15–24 year pregnant women, 15–24 years old 4.90*

Condom use at last higher-risk sex, 15–24 years olds 49.80 55.10 52.90

Male 65.30*

Female 27.10*

Contraceptive prevalence rate among women, 15–49 years old 23.00 64.50 23.60

Proportion of people 15–24 years old who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS 28.00 32.10

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Proportion of land area covered by forest 21.30 18.3 0

Proportion of population with access to improved water source (urban) 87.00 84.00 100.00

Proportion of population with access to improved water source (rural) 57.00 53.50 58.50 62.00

Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation 82.00 87.00

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Unemployment rate, 15–24 years old 6.30 3.40

Debt relief committed under the HIPC initiative $69.7M $86.6M

Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services 20.40 15.80

Source: Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’, Bureau of Statistics, 2009.38

38. Note: More indicators exist but are not listed above because of absence of data.*The figure is for 2002.Source: Indicators 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26 – UNHS, Uganda Bureau of Statistics

3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 – UDHS, Uganda Bureau of Statistics27, 28 – Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development10 – Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development22 – Uganda Forestry Authority19 – 2006 UDHS, Uganda Bureau of StatisticsHIV/AIDS Sero- Behavioural Survey, 2004–2005UDHS 2005–2006



84 percent.39 The enrolment gap between boysand girls improved at the primary school level,with the proportion of girls in total enrolmentrising to virtual parity with boys—49 percent in2004, up from 44 percent in 1990.40 Schoolparticipation varied across regions and theprovision of primary education in conflict areascontinues to be a significant challenge for thegovernment, as education delivery in northernUganda remains heavily reliant on humanitarianagencies, including the United Nations Children’sFund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme,NGOs and faith- based organizations. There isgender disparity in adult literacy rates for ages 15 and above. In 2006, the male literacy rate was81.2 percent, while the female literacy rate wasonly 64.1 percent.41

2.6 SECURITY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

The human and social costs of conflict have beenhigh. Approximately 1.8 million people wereinternally displaced, and thousands were killed.The conflict, civil strife and insecurity impover-ished the people in the eastern and northernregions, leading to significant setbacks in socio- economic development— especially in democraticparticipation, education, food production, healthcare, sanitation and hygiene, and other basic rights.Suffering in the affected subregions was increaseddue to conflicts resulting from cattle- raiding inKaramoja region and natural disasters, such asthe 2007 floods that led to further displacement.

Following the cessation of hostilities in the north,the government faces the challenge of ensuringlasting security in the region and reducingdisparities in human development. Althoughtargeted programmes are already in place for thedevelopment of north and north- eastern regions,the low levels of economic and human develop-

ment require substantial allocation of resources tobridge regional disparities in development.

2.7 REDUCING RISK OF HIV/AIDS

In Uganda, as elsewhere in sub- Saharan Africa,the HIV/AIDS pandemic has caused vast humansuffering, impeded human and economicdevelopment, orphaned over a million childrenand reduced life expectancy. Over 1 millionHIV /AIDS- related deaths have been recordedsince the disease was first reported in thecountry.42 The disease has had long- termimpacts on the labour force, education system,public services and families, particularly in poorhouseholds. Subsequent to comprehensive andcollaborative programmes led by the government,there has been a decline in HIV/AIDSprevalence from a peak of 18 percent of thepopulation in 1992 to about 6 percent in 2007.43

Success in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS inUganda is mainly due to the broad- basednational commitment, as well as effort andsupport from development partners, civil societyand the health sector. Despite Uganda’s impres-sive success in prevention and care, HIV/AIDSremains a significant threat to the development ofthe country, and the recent upturn in HIV/AIDSprevalence has been a cause for concern.

2.8 GENDER EQUITY

There has been a determined effort by thegovernment of Uganda to further gender equalityin development planning and policy. Promotionof gender equality has been emphasized in thePEAP, PRDP and KIDDP. The Constitution ofUganda guarantees equality between women andmen under the law in the spheres of political,social and cultural life. A number of laws havebeen revised in line with this constitutionalprovision; these include the Local Governments

39. Government of Uganda, ‘Uganda National Household Survey 2005–2006’, Bureau of Statistics.40. Ibid.41. Ibid.42. UNDP, ‘Millennium Development Goals: Uganda’s Progress Report’, 2007.43. Ibid.



Act (Cap 243), the Land Act (Cap 227), theLand Acquisition Act (Cap 226) and theNational Agricultural Advisory Services Act.Further, the government formulated the NationalGender Policy in 1997 and revised it in 2007 toensure that all government policies andprogrammes are consistent with the long- termgoal of eliminating gender inequalities.

The government took measures to implementgender budgeting and to include gender as a cross- cutting issue in various sector- wide approachplans. Parliamentarians were sensitized on waysof addressing gender issues in governance. Theformation of associations such as the UgandaWomen Parliamentary Association and Children’sHouse were aimed towards this. Uganda is also asignatory to international gender conventions,including the United Nations Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Discriminationagainst Women, and the Beijing Declaration andits Platform for Action.

Since 1990, Uganda has implemented affirmativeaction policies to increase women’s participationin higher education, political participation andpublic positions. Significant progress has beenmade in electoral participation, and womenrepresentatives comprise 30 percent of theParliament elected in 2006. One third of seats arereserved for women at the council level.Following the implementation of universalprimary education, the gender enrolment gap hasapproached parity. The reservation of seats forwomen in universities and other tertiary institu-tions contributed to an increase in the proportionof women to total student enrolment, increasingfrom 31 percent in 1993 to 42 percent in 2004.44

Despite government efforts and progress in someareas, there are gender disparities in adult literacy,health care access, incidence of HIV/AIDS,

employment rates and access to financialservices.45 Gender inequalities were further increasedin northern Uganda due to prolonged conflict.

Women account for only 37 percent of public- sectoremployees and only 29 percent of private- sectorworkers. The majority of female workers arecategorized as unpaid family workers (46 percentof the female labour force). There are also widegender differences in wages, especially in the privatesector. Across the country, the median monthly salaryfor men is $37.68, roughly twice that of women.

Maternal mortality is high in Uganda and is oneof the areas where achieving the MDGs poseschallenge. High levels of fertility and morbidityhave been a challenge, constraining women’s abilityto acquire human capital and participate in gainfulemployment. Women- headed households aremore vulnerable to poverty.

Disparities in women’s access to justice are significant,given the high rate of violence against women.46

Domestic violence is widespread in Uganda, withat least 50 percent of married women reportingsome form of physical or sexual violence in the past12 months.47 While bills have been introduced toaddress domestic violence and prevent offencesagainst women, legal procedures often put ahigher burden of proof on women.

2.9 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

Sustainable use and management of the environmentare key to meeting Uganda’s human and economicdevelopment goals. Uganda has significantnatural resources, including regular rainfall anddeposits of cobalt, copper, gold and other minerals.In 2007, Uganda reported 7.2 million hectares ofarable land under crop agriculture, which is lessthan 50 percent of its arable land. The NationalEnvironment Management Authority estimates

44. UNDP, ‘Millennium Development Goals: Uganda’s Progress Report’, 2007.45. Ibid.46. Government of Uganda, ‘Gender Inequality in Uganda: The status, causes and effects’, Discussion Paper 1, Ministry of

Finance, Planning and Economic Development, 2006.47. Government of Uganda, ‘Gender and Productivity Survey’, Office of the Prime Minister, 2009.



that, due to Uganda’s rapidly growing population,there will be a decrease in the available arableland by 2022.48 The land available for agriculturein the eastern region is likely to decrease by 2010.Uganda’s environmental challenges arecompounded by additional concerns, includingclimate change, soil erosion, deforestation, waterresource pressures and poor waste management.

In 2005, the Government of Uganda began topromote tourism from an environmental perspective,investing $1 million in an international campaignto promote ecotourism. Government strategydocuments highlight long- term plans to capitalizeon new eco- friendly opportunities for thecountry, including bio fuels and sustainableconsumption and production.

2.10 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES

Uganda is at a critical stage of economic andhuman development. Despite nearly 20 years ofimpressive economic performance, coupled withsteadily declining poverty rates, the country stillfaces several challenges with regard to meetingkey economic and social development targets.Though Uganda is on track to meet several of itsMDG goals, success in actually attaining themwill require prolonged periods of strongeconomic growth (at least 7 percent per annum),a significant reduction in the population growthrate and an equitable distribution of growth anddevelopment. The government’s final synthesisreport reviewing the effectiveness of the PEAPpointed out that simultaneously securing thesethree outcomes will prove a major challenge.49 Inaddition, environmental sustainability remains amajor challenge for Uganda, further heightenedby impact of climate change.

Despite progress in poverty reduction, regionaldisparities in human development remain high,

particularly between the greater north and therest of the country. As discussed earlier, this islargely the result of pervasive conflicts that haveplagued northern Uganda for over two decades.

Uganda held its first multiparty elections in 2006,and developing a strong multiparty democracyremains a key objective— an area where support isstrongly needed. Similarly, further progress needsto be achieved in the rule of law and justicesectors. Challenges remain in maintainingfunctioning local council courts, and issues oftransparency, accountability and corruptionrequire prolonged and concerted efforts by thegovernment and development partners.

With efforts towards accountability and goodgovernance reaching the decentralized levels oflocal government, specific support is needed toensure that local governments have the necessaryresources and conditions that lead to effectivegovernance. Of particular concern is the increasein the number of districts— from 44 to 80 in six years, with 14 more announced. This is amajor concern for both the government’s budgetand development partners, as limited resourceshave to be divided among an increasing numberof recipients.

2.11 DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Uganda has been a recipient of substantialmultilateral and bilateral development coopera-tion and aid. In the past decade, bilateral andmultilateral donor assistance strategies havebecome more closely aligned with the PEAP,notably through the increased prevalence ofsector or general budget support as opposed tospecific project support. It was intended that witha common poverty eradication goal, externaldevelopment assistance to Uganda could beconsiderably increased and would be moreconsistent. In line with the Paris Declaration,

48. Government of Uganda, ‘National State of the Environment Report for Uganda 2007’, National EnvironmentManagement Authority, Kampala.

49. Oxford Policy Management, ‘Independent Evaluation of Uganda’s poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)’, FinalSynthesis Report, July 2008.



commitment to support the PEAP was seen as away of enhancing aid harmonization. For donorsproviding general budget support, the govern-ment established a framework under theMinistry of Finance, while donors providingproject aid are strongly encouraged to developnew projects that align with the PEAP framework.

On average, donor commitments during theperiod 2003–2004 to 2007–2008 were $722.8million annually. In 2003–2004, total donorcommitment was $583.5 million, which morethan doubled in 2004–2005 to $1,269.8 million,before decreasing to $509.8 million in2005–2006. The decline was due to aid cutbackby some donors, because of delayed fulfilment ofrelated good governance conditionality. Anadditional factor in the cutback was an effort tointegrate project aid into the Medium TermExpenditure Framework. The trend reversed toan increase in 2006–2007, up to $741.6 million.During the 2007–2008 financial year, a total of$519.5 million was committed.50 The development

assistance was largely grants, with the exceptionof the year 2006–2007, when the amount of loanswas higher (see Figure 2). Health, education,agriculture, accountability and public- sectormanagement received a larger share in terms ofpercentage of support (see Table 2B in Annex 2).Among the project grants, the support was mainlyto water and environment, education, health, landand housing, and road and other works.

Budget support remains the government’spreferred modality and accounts for a substantialportion of Uganda’s development aid (see Figure 3).The mechanisms of general budget supportworked effectively, and the government providedadequate policy space for donors to engage.

The Uganda Joint Assistance Strategy wascollaboratively designed by seven developmentpartners, including the African DevelopmentBank, The World Bank and the governments ofGermany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden andthe United Kingdom. The objective of the jointstrategy was to articulate a synchronized

50. Government of Uganda, ‘Development Cooperation Uganda, 2007–2008 Report’.

Source: Government of Uganda, ‘Development Cooperation Uganda, 2007–2008 Report’.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000 Grants

Loans

2007–20082006–20072005–20062004–20052003–2004

Figure 2. Total donor commitments, 2003–2004 to 2007–2008

Am

ou

nt

(US$

Mill

ion

s)



development financing strategy to support thePEAP. Twelve of Uganda’s main developmentpartners joined the strategy in order to workmore effectively to support the government. Arecent evaluation concluded that the UgandaJoint Assessment Strategy had limited success incoordinating donor activities.

The PEAP evaluation found that the processeshad facilitated greater cooperation and collabora-tion between the Government of Uganda and agrowing number of development partners,improving quality of resource mobilization.Nonetheless, the evaluation also found that thesedevelopments still fell short of the originalexpectations.51 While the official developmentassistance volume has indeed grown, the expecta-tion that such expansion would be sustained, andthat aid would become less volatile and morepredictable, has not been met.52

Emergency and humanitarian aid was highduring the 2004–2005 fiscal year and decreased

in the subsequent years, mainly due to thecessation of conflict. Humanitarian assistance forthe year 2007–2008 was $45.63 million, and themain donors include the UK Department forInternational Development, the EuropeanUnion, Sweden and Norway.

Uganda benefited from debt cancellation underthe Heavily Indebted Poor Countries DebtInitiatives of 1998 and 2001. This enabled thecountry to establish a Poverty Action Fund, intowhich savings made from debt servicing weredeposited for funding high priority povertyreduction programmes. The ‘National MDGProgress Report 2007’ notes that all universalprimary education expenditures are funded fromthe Poverty Action Fund. In addition, the reportfound that, as a whole, education sector financingincreased significantly, from 2.1 percent of GDPin 1995 to 4.8 percent of GDP in 2003–2004.

According to the development cooperationreport, Uganda operates a cash budget and thus

51. Oxford Policy Management, ‘Independent Evaluation of Uganda’s poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)’, FinalSynthesis Report, July 2008, p. 25.

52. Ibid, p. 23.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800Total grants

Emergency aid

Budget support

Project support

2007-20082006–20072005–20062004–2005

Figure 3. Total grant disbursements, 2004–2005 to 2007–2008

Am

ou

nt

(US$

Mill

ion

s)




only realized revenue can be spent. Implementationratios for counterpart funding have been on anincreasing trend due to fulfilment of some goodgovernance targets. In particular, the implemen-

tation ratio for 2007–2008 was 99 percent,followed by 2006–2007 with 117 percent and2005–2006 with 89 percent, which indicatesbetter implementation of the budget.53

53. Government of Uganda, ‘Development Cooperation Uganda, 2007–2008 Report’.

Table 3. Summary of disbursements by type of assistance, 2003–2004 to 2007–2008 (US$)

Type ofassistance

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008

Debt relief 0 669,538 0 0 1,912,364

HIPC debt relief 61,650,000 65,080,000 81,200,000 51,620,000 50,000,000

Budget support 454,319,015 441,643,231 225,945,095 615,364,849 243,941,181

Oil 0 0 0 0 0

Other balance ofpayments support

0 0 0 0 0

Emergency reliefassistance

46,988,679 59,946,613 668,600 474,028 0

Food aid 1,400,000 2,500,000 6,711,182 0 0

Free-standingtechnical cooperation

56,554,502 35,201,324 57,474,083 51,348,669 8,345,647

Investmentprojectassistance

350,837,978 277,754,190 172,782,474 332,584,945 177,874,077

Investment-related technicalassistance

133,817,842 141,843,394 178,946,632 183,394,834 15,202,850

Other project-relatedassistance

15,202,312 14,844,062 10,367,906 42,303,496 14,800,563

Total 1,120,770,328 1,039,502,352 734,095,972 1,277,090,821 512,076,682




C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P A N D T H E U N I N U G A N D A 2 1

The UN system brings together UN agenciesbased in Uganda, non- resident UN agenciessupporting development interventions54 andBretton Woods institutions.55 The ResidentCoordinator heads the UN system for thecoordination of development operations at thecountry level. UNDP is the host agency for theResident Coordinator system, funded throughresources raised by UNDP, the United NationsDevelopment Group and contributions from UNagencies. The Resident Coordinator, who acts asUNDP Resident Representative, is also theHumanitarian Coordinator in Uganda. TheUnited Nations Country Team (UNCT)comprises UN agencies supporting theGovernment of Uganda.

The UN system, other international agencies andnational organizations supported the Governmentof Uganda formulate and revise the PEAP and sector- wide policies and plans for health,education and agriculture. The UN perceives itsneutrality as a contributing factor in advocatinghuman development and democratic governance,holding regular elections, and observing andprotecting human rights. By deploying itscombined resources, the UN system intends tobetter assist the Government of Uganda inaddressing development challenges andachieving the Millennium Declaration targets,the MDGs and national development objectives.

To complement institutional knowledge andresources, and to enhance contributions tonational development results, the UNCTimplemented the UNDAF for the period2001–2005 and 2006–2010 (abridged to 2009).To align with the Uganda NDP for 2009–2014,the UN system shortened its 2006–2010UNDAF by one year and developed a new2009–2014 UNDAF. The forthcomingGovernment of Uganda/UNDP countryprogramme is derived from the UNDAF and isfor the same period as the NDP.

UNDP began supporting Uganda in 1977, withthe endorsement of the Standard BasicAssistance Agreement by the Government ofUganda and UNDP. Though UNDP has beenproviding assistance for over three decades, thefirst structured country programme wasimplemented in 1997. The 1997–2000 countryprogramme had the overall objective ofpromoting democratic governance for povertyeradication. The two thematic areas coveredduring this period included:56

1) Decentralized governance, with particularemphasis on capacity development for partici-patory formulation and management of district-and locallevel policies and programmesrelated to poverty eradication; and

Chapter 3

UNDP AND THE UN IN UGANDA

54. These are: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Joint United NationsProgramme on HIV/AIDS, United Nations Department for Safety and Security, United Nations Population Fund,United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, UNDP (along with UNCDF and United NationsDevelopment Fund for Women), World Health Organization and World Food Programme. In addition, UN coordina-tion brings together non- resident agencies, including: United Nations Human Settlements Programme; InternationalFund for Agricultural Development; International Labour Organization; United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization; United Nations Industrial Development Organization; United Nations EnvironmentProgramme; UNV; and International Organization for Migration.

55. International Monetary Fund and The World Bank.56. UNDP, ‘First Country Cooperation Framework for Uganda (1997–2000)’.


C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P A N D T H E U N I N U G A N D A2 2

2) Private- sector development, with particularemphasis on the development of small-scale and micro- enterprises as a means offighting poverty.

Cross- cutting issues that were addressed included:the role of women in development activities; thefostering of environmentally sustainable liveli-hoods; and the mitigation of the socio- economicimpact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Uganda.

3.1 UNDAF AND SECOND UNDPCOUNTRY PROGRAMME(2001–2005) 57

In 2000, the UNCT carried out its first CommonCountry Assessment (CCA), ‘Uganda: Promise,Performance and Future Challenges’. The CCAserved as a key resource in furthering a coordinatedapproach to UN agencies’ development assistanceto Uganda and acted as the basis in the ensuingformulation of the first UNDAF.

The CCA outlined the challenges that faced thegovernment, particularly in combating theHIV/AIDS epidemic of the late 1990s, duringwhich one in every ten adults was infected withthe disease. There was also concern regardingsustaining the sharp declines achieved in HIV/AIDS infection rates during the 1990s. Anotherarea of concern pointed out in the CCA was theimpact of conflict on people living in northernUganda. With over 2 million children orphanedas a result of HIV/AIDS and conflict in northerndistricts, the national strategy placed highpriority on minimizing the risks of HIV/AIDSand addressing conflict- related issues. Ugandaalso needed significant foreign developmentassistance in order to achieve its developmentgoals. The CCA noted that widespread corrup-tion and armed conflicts were a drain on thenational budget, contributing to slow growth,stunted development and reduced levels of socialjustice throughout the country.

The UNDAF, drawing on the needs and priori-ties identified in the CCA, was closely alignedwith the PEAP. The UNDAF outlined four goalsfor UNCT programming, derived from Uganda’soverarching goal of reducing the proportion ofpeople below the poverty line to less than 10percent by 2017. The four UNDAF goals were tocontribute to:

1. Sustainable, broad- based and equitableeconomic growth and social transformation;

2. Enhanced observation of human rights andthe promotion of good governance, genderequality and security;

3. Sustainable interventions for empoweringthe poor to raise their incomes; and

4. Enhanced quality of life for the Ugandanpopulation, with a particular focus on thepoor and vulnerable groups.

Particular attention was to be given tomainstreaming the cross- cutting issues of humanrights, HIV/AIDS, the environment and gender.

3.1.1 UNDP SECOND COUNTRYPROGRAMME (2001–2005) 58

The second country programme, covering the2001–2005 period, had the overall objective ofpromoting good governance for poverty eradication(also the objective of the first country programme).This objective was considered valid after reaffir-mation of the PEAP as the guiding frameworkfor all national development programmes.

The second country programme was intended toinclude: more targeted programmatic interventions;clearer development partnerships and resourcemobilization strategies; a results/outcomesorientation, with upstream support for officialdevelopment assistance coordination; and capacity- building for policy and strategyformulation. Two mutually supportive thematicareas in which to pursue the programme’s policyobjective were identified:

57. United Nations Uganda, ‘Common Country Assessment for Uganda (2000)’ and ‘United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework for Uganda (2001–2005)’.

58. UNDP, ‘Country Cooperation Framework for Uganda (2001–2005)’.



1) Good governance, with particular emphasison policy and institutional developmentsupport in the realms of political, economicand administrative governance; and

2) Income- generation and sustainable liveli-hoods, with particular emphasis on: directlyaddressing poverty through the promotion ofmicro- and small- scale enterprises; and raisingincomes, food security and the householdsand communities’ welfare through sustain-able utilization and conservation of theenvironment and natural resources.

The two outcomes outlined in the countryprogramme were in alignment with the four goalsof the revised PEAP, which included: economicgrowth and transformation; good governance andsecurity; increased ability of the poor to raisetheir incomes; and improved quality of life of thepoor. In the two programme areas, the cross- cutting themes that were identified to bemainstreamed throughout UNDP programmingcomprise gender, HIV/AIDS and environment.

During the second country programme, UNDPdeveloped the Transition to Recovery Programme(TRP) in order to provide structured support to post- conflict return and reintegration. The TRPaimed to address the humanitarian and develop-ment challenges of northern and eastern Ugandathrough a package of interventions in four areas:

1. Promoting livelihoods and reducing the foodaid dependency of internally displacedpersons through training and support toalternative income generation projects;

2. Capacity building for the Office of the PrimeMinister and other governmental bodies (i.e.,District Disaster Management Committees),in order to strengthen the government’scapacity to address the problem of internaldisplacement at the central level and in sevenselected conflict- affected districts;

3. Supporting programmes aimed at reintegrat-ing adult ex- combatants or reporters;59 and

4. Developing lessons from pilot projects in orderto inform a more comprehensive project.

The TRP was intended to commence and beimplemented on a pilot basis from 2004 through2005. This time was intended as a preparatoryphase from which lessons and good practices wouldbe drawn to assist the development of a long- termrecovery programme. The programme was extendedby one year due to delays in implementation.

3.2 UNDAF AND THIRD UNDPCOUNTRY PROGRAMME(2006–2009) 60

In 2004, the CCA identified constraints inachieving the economic and human developmenttargets outlined in the PEAP and the MDGs.Key challenges identified included fast populationgrowth, a large population of internally displacedpersons, high infant and maternal mortality rates,regional disparities in conflict- affected districts,deteriorating natural resources and natural disasters.

Based on the needs identified in the CCA, thefour areas for inter- agency collaboration identi-fied in 2006–2009 UNDAF are:

1. Reducing poverty and improving human development;

2. Developing good governance and protectingand promoting human rights;

3. Supporting the national HIV/AIDSresponse; and

4. Accelerating the transition from relief torecovery in conflict- affected areas.

3.2.1 UNDP THIRD COUNTRY PROGRAMME (2006–2009)

Based on the CCA and the UNDAF, and incollaboration with the Government of Uganda,

59. Ex- combatants are referred to as ‘reporters’.60. United Nations Uganda, ‘Common Country Assessment for Uganda (2004)’ and ‘United Nations Development

Assistance Framework for Uganda (2006–2009)’.


C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P A N D T H E U N I N U G A N D A2 4

UNDP identified three key programmatic areasof practice (called pillars): poverty reduction,democratic governance, and crisis prevention andrecovery. The programme outlined the rights- basedapproach, gender, HIV/AIDS and environmentas cross- cutting issues. The outcomes of theprogramme are listed in Table 4. Originallyintended to run for five years (from 2006 to2010), the programme was abridged to four years in order to align with the time- frame of the NDP.

The interventions identified under the threeprogramme areas are:

Building capacity to reduce human povertyunder the poverty reduction pillar was intendedto focus on scaling up policy advice, coordinationand monitoring in support of the Government ofUganda’s efforts to achieve the MDGs. UNDPsupport aimed to address poverty reductionthrough the promotion of microfinance andsmall and medium- sized enterprises. Priorities in this area include strengthening the institu-tional capacity to deliver business developmentservices and enabling the improvement ofpolicies and regulations for small and medium- sized enterprises.

In addition, UNDP programmes intended tosupport the government’s efforts to promote thesustainable utilization and conservation ofenvironment and natural resources in order toraise income and enhance food security andwelfare of households and communities. Pilotprojects are to be developed in the area ofsustainable human development, such as thosethat blend income generation with energy andenvironmental conservation. In addition to pilotprojects, the poverty reduction programme aimsto integrate energy and environmental concernsinto national planning processes, ensuring thatthe poor will have access to modern and affordableenergy services. Support is also being provided tostrengthen the national disaster response.

Promotion and consolidation of the democraticgovernance pillar was intended to strengthendemocratic governance at the national and locallevels. Support was provided to key anti- corruptioninstitutions and national democratic instrumentsand institutions. The programme supportedbuilding capacity of government institutions onhuman rights and the administration of justice.The planned interventions include: the strength-ening of capacities for the implementation of the

61. UNDP Uganda, ‘Uganda Programme Overview’, presentation.

Table 4. Country programme outcomes 2006–201061

Pillar 1: Poverty reduction Pillar 2: Democratic governance Pillar 3: Crisis prevention and recovery

Increased national capacityfor monitoring and policydialogue on MDG progress

Deepened democratic processes andstrengthened institutions in order toaddress national development challenges

Strengthened national conflict resolu-tion, peace-building and reconcilia-tion processes and capabilities

Integrated local initiativesinto national strategies forpoverty reduction

Enhanced capacities for thepromotion and administration ofjustice and human rights

Strengthened national capacities forrecovery in conflict-affected areas

Developed strategies forsustainable land manage-ment in rangelands

Improved transparency and accounta-bility in government institutions

Created a secure environment forrecovery and development

Strengthened national capacities toreduce the threats and effects of landmines and unexploded ordnance



African Peer Review Mechanism/New Partnershipfor Africa’s Development component in Uganda;the deepening of the democratic process; thestrengthening of democratic institutions; thepromotion of transparency and accountabilitythrough a rights- based approach; and the furtheringof the effectiveness of local governance structuresthrough participatory planning.

Additionally, it was intended that governancepolicy support would be provided to HIV/AIDSissues. In partnership with government institutions,the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSand other agencies, UNDP aimed to mainstreamHIV/AIDS into national policy frameworks.

Support to the conflict prevention, resolutionand recovery pillar followed the TRP and otherinterventions in the previous countryprogrammes and intended to further strengthengovernment efforts to respond to post- conflictrecovery and reintegration. Programme interven-tions include the return and reintegration ofinternally displaced persons and ex- combatants,human security, and peace- building and reconcil-iation. The programme was intended to reduceregional imbalances in terms of achieving theMDGs through the creation of an enablingenvironment for peace and the resettlement,reintegration, security and socio- economicrecovery of conflict- affected populations andhost communities. UNDP is the cluster lead forearly recovery (titled Governance, Infrastructureand Livelihoods Cluster), and support forstrengthening early recovery cluster coordinationwas one of the programme interventions.

During the programme period, a CrisisManagement and Recovery Programme wasoutlined to: support the recovery of post- conflictcommunities through their transition fromrelying on humanitarian relief to self- reliance andthe ability to withstand calamities; create aculture of peace by establishing mechanisms thatwill root and build peace within communities

that have experienced conflict and are transition-ing to relative peace (as well as communitiesexperiencing unstable peace); and supportcommunities to cope, be resilient and managenatural and human- induced disasters.

3.3 UNDP RESPONSE ANDPROGRAMMING PORTFOLIO

UNDP has undertaken a large number ofinterventions in Uganda over the past nine years.There were 58 interventions, for differentdurations, during the 2001–2009 programmingperiod. This includes 29 interventions in povertyreduction and environment, 19 in governance,and 10 projects that supported crisis preventionand recovery in the ongoing country programme.The programme portfolio was $92 million for thetwo programme cycles. See Annex 3 for activitiessupported under each practice area.62

Five interventions from the second countryprogramme have been extended in the thirdcountry programme, providing more than nineyears of continued support to specific interven-tions (in some cases, the interventions had beeninitiated under the first country programme).Most interventions had small budgets, with theexception of two projects that had budgets of$3.3 million and $0.8 million (see Annex 3).

3.4 RESOURCE MOBILIZATION ANDPROGRAMME DELIVERY

Detailed financial information was not availablefor the 2001–2003 period, reportedly because theATLAS system had not yet been introduced.According to country office information for thisperiod, expenditures were approximately $4million annually, all of which were from corefunds. In 2004 (coinciding with the introductionof the ATLAS system), the country office wasable to provide more detailed financial informa-tion. For the 2004–2009 period, total expendi-tures have been $80 million.

62. The information included for each practice area was provided by UNDP Uganda.


C H A P T E R 3 . U N D P ’ S C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 6

Combining the 2001–2003 estimate and the2004–2009 ATLAS figures, total country officeexpenditures between 2001 and 2009 were $92 million.Different proportions of the budget (13 percent in2005, 76 percent in 2006, 27 percent in 2007 and 5percent in 2008) were not allocated to specific practiceareas, thereby limiting the level of analysis that could bedone to understand funding and expenditure patterns.See Table 5 for annual expenditures for various practice areas.

Figure 4 illustrates the ratio of core to non- coreresources. There have been significant increases in coreand non- core funding, and core funding has beensubstantially high since 2006.

3.5 PROGRAMME EXECUTION

To enhance local ownership of development activitiesand build capacity to manage aid, UNDP adopted anational implementation modality. During the assess-ment period, about 90 percent of programmes wereimplemented through the Aid Liaison Department(ALD) located in the Ministry of Finance, Planningand Economic Development (MFPED). The ALD,established in 1998 and operational through 2008, wasset up to implement UNDP supported programmes.

Between 1997 and 2008, UNDP provided substantialsupport to the ALD and supported 43 staff positions.The support was ended in January 2008 by mutualagreement of MFPED and UNDP. While UNDP willcontinue the national implementation modality inproviding support to government interventions, thedetails of execution have yet to be worked out.

Tab

le 5

. Pro

gra

mm

e f

un

din

g b

y p

ract

ice

are

a, 2

00

4–2

00

9 (

US

$)

Pra

ctic

e ar

ea2

00

42

00

52

00

62

00

72

00

8To

tal 2

00

4–2

00

82

00

9*

Tota

l 20

04

–20

09

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Exp

end

.Ex

p.%

Ach

ievi

ng

MD

Gs

and

red

uci

ng

pov

erty

5,69

0,00

054

.30

4,77

7,00

047

.10

136,

000

0.95

2,93

3,00

016

.64

6,88

7,90

630

.64

20,4

23,9

0626

.74

1,50

0,19

342

.99

21,9

24,0

9927

.45

Ener

gy

and

env

iro

n-

men

t fo

r su

stai

nab

le

dev

elo

pm

ent

1,73

2,00

016

.53

1,49

7,00

014

.76

0.00

628,

000

3.56

41,

383,

415

6.15

5,24

0,41

56.

8628

8,26

68.

265,

528,

681

6.92

Fost

erin

g d

emo

crat

icg

over

nan

ce2,

562,

000

24.4

52,

403,

000

23.6

93,

171,

000

22.1

54,

395,

000

24.9

47,

170,

042

31.9

019

,701

,042

25.7

984

4,84

024

.21

20,5

45,8

8225

.72

Cri

sis

pre

ven

tio

n a

nd

reco

very

200,

000

1.91

119,

000

1.17

0.00

4,85

1,00

027

.53

5,82

0,83

825

.90

12,3

40,0

4216

.15

636,

728

18.2

512

,976

,770

16.2

5

No

t sp

ecifi

ed29

4,00

02.

811,

347,

000

13.2

811

,011

,000

76.9

04,

816,

000

27.3

31,

214,

948

5.41

18,6

82,9

4824

.46

219,

224

6.28

18,9

02,1

7223

.66

Tota

l1

0,4

78

,00

01

00

.00

10

,14

3,0

00

10

0.0

01

4,3

18

,00

01

00

.00

17

,62

3,0

00

10

0.0

02

2,4

77

,14

91

00

.00

76

,38

8,3

53

10

0.0

03

,48

9,2

51

10

0.0

07

9,8

77

,60

41

00

.00

Sou

rce:

UN

DP

Ug

and

a.



0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Other resources (non-core)

Regular resources (core)

20082007200620052004

Figure 4. Core and non-core resources

Am

ou

nt

(US$

Th

ou

san

ds)



C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 2 9

This chapter presents the evaluation findings anddiscusses the UNDP contribution to develop-ment results identified in the 2001–2005 and2006–2009 country programmes. The discussionis organized by the following practice areas:democratic governance, poverty reduction, andcrisis prevention and recovery.

4.1 DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

During the past 15 years, Uganda has madesubstantial progress in the area of democraticgovernance. Despite efforts to strengthendemocratic systems, challenges remain in consol-idating multiparty democracy, deepening thefoundations of democratic governance and reducingcorruption. The 2005–2009 Joint AssessmentStrategy on Governance noted that, compared toits ranking in the mid-1990s, Uganda’sgovernance rating in the 2000s had improved.

In 1998, UNDP assisted Uganda in designing agood governance programme, leading to thedevelopment of the ‘Good Governance for

Poverty Eradication Programme (2001–2005)’.63

The overall objective of UNDP support was tostrengthen key central government institutions’capacities outlined in the Uganda goodgovernance programme, in order to enablepoverty eradication through decentralized, broad- based and equitable development. Theintended overall outcomes were increasedefficiency, transparency and accountability in thepublic sector. The current country programmeidentified three governance outcomes in the areasof deepening democratization, justice and humanrights, and transparency and accountability. Table6 presents the number of interventions undereach area. There were five interventions that werenot directly linked to the stated outcomes.

4.1.1 SUPPORT TO ENHANCING POLICY

UNDP involvement in governance outlinessupport to informing policy- making as a keyobjective. UNDP appears to have had limitedproactive participation in national policy discus-sions with government and development

63. UNDP, ‘Country Programme Action Plan (2006–2010) for Uganda’, December 2005.

Chapter 4

CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Table 6. Outcome areas and interventions

Governance outcome areas Number of interventions

Transparency and accountability 7

Democratic process deepened and institutions strengthened 4

Justice and human rights 3

Others 5

Total 19


C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S3 0

partners,64 or in Deepening Democracy Programmediscussions.65 This is due to limited senior- leveltechnical capacity66 and a lack of clear leadershipvision guiding governance efforts. Because oflimited contribution of UNDP programmes tobasket fund arrangements, there is low engage-ment with donor coordination structures, such asthe Democracy Working Group and the Justice,Law and Order Sector Development PartnersGroup. An exception was the contribution of ajoint programme with the United NationsCapital Development Fund (UNCDF) thatinformed policy and government practice instrengthening local governance. UNCDF andUNDP also chaired the donor sub- group fordecentralization reform and are coordinatingdiscussions and programme implementation atboth policy and operational levels in the sub- sector.

4.1.2 STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONS

At the national and local level, UNDP extendedvarying degrees of support to government institu-tions.67 Considering that several other agenciesprovided support to strengthening governance, itwas not always feasible to delineate contributionthat can be attributed to UNDP support. Thefollowing sections discuss the UNDP contribu-tion to institutions of governance at the nationaland local level.

Enhancing the capacities of national institutions

UNDP was responsive to the emerging needs inthe democratic governance area and developedpartnerships to address nationallevel needs anddecentralization efforts at district and local levels.This two- pronged support to national and locallevel government followed by UNDP was largelyconsistent with that of donors.

Individual interventions appeared to meet mostof their stated objectives. The support to institu-

tions with country- wide coverage and regionalfield offices throughout Uganda— such as theInspector General of Government (IGG), theDirectorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) andthe Uganda Human Rights Commission— waseffective. Rising demand for both the IGG andthe Uganda Human Rights Commission servicesto deal with rights abuses and improprietiesindicate the potential of these institutions instrengthening democratic processes and ensuringtransparency and accountability. Despite theimportance of the interventions in supportinggovernment efforts, the support design lackedsynergies to allow for a consolidated outcome ofinstitutional strengthening. UNDP interventionscould have been more effective, if the scope ofsupport were adequate to make a meaningfulcontribution. The support was often notcommensurate with the need.

UNDP supported the Parliament of Uganda intraining administrative staff in management andorientation of parliamentarians to procedures andmanagement issues. Training was also provided inorder to: enhance parliamentarians’ understandingof cross- cutting development issues; harmonizeworking relationships among parliamentariansfrom different political parties; and ensure partic-ipatory democracy. These interventions wereperceived as timely by the government, asmultiparty dispensation necessitated a moretolerant and cooperative working environment.UNDP support facilitated building coalitionsbetween parliamentarians and NGOs and civilsociety organizations (CSOs). The partnership withcivil society enabled parliamentarians to raisesocial and development issues in the legislaturebacked with research and data and to translatepertinent issues into bills for tabling in theParliament (for example, the bill on trafficking inhuman persons). Infrastructure support provided

64. This was also identified during the April 2009 governance scoping mission.65. The programme, implemented by the government, is a joint effort funded by the governments of Denmark, Ireland, the

Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK.66. The 2005 governance evaluation report indicates that the governance programme had only two staff members.67. The Decentralization Secretariat in the Ministry of Local Government, DEI, IGG, LCCs, the Ministry of Gender,

Labour and Social Development, the Office of Public Procurement and Disposal Authority, the Parliament of Ugandaand the Uganda Human Rights Commission.



by UNDP for transcribing parliamentaryproceedings made possible the speedy availabilityof the information to the general public.

UNDP support to parliament also furtheredinstitutional linkages and partnership exchangeswith stakeholders both inside and outsideUganda. Consultative debates and dialogue, South- South exchange visits, and workshops andconferences with local governments and councilswere perceived by government agencies as instru-mental in fostering better cooperation and asforums for learning lessons, consolidating nationaland international harmony, and building peace.Anecdotal accounts during interviews withgovernment counterparts indicate positive attitu-dinal changes among Members of Parliament asa result of international exchange visits.

The main limitation of UNDP support totraining parliamentarians was that efforts werenot made to ensure that national institutions(such as the Uganda Management Institute) arestrengthened to provide training and orientation ona regular basis, or to ensure government ownershipof the process for strengthening such institutions.

Enhancing the capacities of local institutions

UNDP supported the Ministry of LocalGovernment through two interventions:Participatory Development Management(PDM) and Local Council Courts (LCCs).There were mixed results, as the support was notstrategically focused in the PDM and was not aseffective as anticipated in strengthening theLCCs. The programme size and nature ofsupport to the PDM and LCCs appeared to beinsufficient to make a substantive difference tothe institutions. UNDP supported eight sub- counties for implementing the PDM and fivedistricts for strengthening the LCCs. While thescope of the support was small, adequate linkageswere not made to policy discussions in the area.The local governments supported under the

PDM developed participatory planningguidelines, which were tested and successfullyused. Local governments were oriented to partic-ipatory processes. There is potential for replica-tion in other districts.

A UNDP intervention designed to link to othergovernment programmes in the area would haveallowed making more important contributions tostrengthening participatory processes.68 In termsof the effectiveness of PDM interventions, successvaried across pilot districts, with some betterengaged in the process and others experiencingdifficulties in completing it. The challenges ofachieving intended results through participatoryplanning are outlined in Box 3. In order tobecome a sustainable process, there is a need todevelop stronger linkages with national- levelcommitments and budget allocations. Furtherefforts are needed to align them with governmentprogrammes in the area and to strengthen localgovernment revenue- generation capacities.

The LCC interventions could not be continued asintended and had to be modified. The interven-tion was designed to provide support down to thefirst and second levels of local government:village and parish councils, respectively. However,because elections had not yet been held at thoselevels, UNDP could not continue supporting them,and instead extended support to the third level,the municipal and town division level of localgovernment. While there is evidence that somecapacity in local justice administration wasenhanced through LCC support, these institu-tions lacked the infrastructure and resources tohave performed effectively. The scope of UNDPsupport in this area was one- dimensional and toonarrow, and by itself insufficient to significantlyaddress the multidimensional challenges LCCs faced.In addition, UNDP- supported LCC interven-tions were not adequately linked to the UNCDFDeepening Democracy Programme, furtherlimiting contribution to results in this area.

68. During the pilot phase, the small number of targets allowed UNDP to provide full financial support. However, up- scal-ing the project in the second or third phases created more difficulties, as financial resources were more limited (per localgovernment officials interviewed by the evaluation team, particularly for PDM).



Implementing partners considered UNDPgovernance support to be aligned with the needsand priorities identified in the PEAP andUNDP neutrality to be an advantage to engagingin governance issues. The partners the evaluationteam met shared the view that UNDPcontributed to enhancing institutional capacities.Government counterparts valued the initialsupport (funding and/or technical assistance)UNDP provided to emerging institutions.69

UNDP interventions lacked clarity of the capaci-ties they intended to strengthen in the institu-tions that were supported. Strengthening govern-ment institutions in the areas of UNDP supportneeds more sustained interventions, with a clearfocus on intended results and parameters. This

was found to be lacking. Several issues relating tocapacity enhancement were not adequatelyaddressed, although they were raised by variousevaluations and assessments carried out byUNDP.70 One of the issues pointed out by earlierevaluations was that the UNDP contribution toresults was undermined by planning for too manyinterventions in the governance sector in terms ofboth thematic and geographic coverage, leadingto dispersion of resources. Further, partnershipswith other agencies involved in similar activitiesthat would enable UNDP support to be strategicin filling critical gaps were not evident.

UNDP did not use the recommendations of thegovernance programme evaluations to strengthenplanning and implementation, and programme

69. DEI was established in 1998, the Uganda Human Rights Commission in 1997 and IGG in 1986. However, the func-tions were revised and an independent budget was allocated in 1998. The Public Procurement and Disposal of PublicAssets Authority was established in 2003.

Box 3. Challenges of furthering participatory planning

The ADR team found varying levels of satisfaction and some limitations in the participatory process supportedby UNDP in the districts visited.

First, overall available funding for community projects remained small. Therefore, more projects are identifiedthan can be funded or implemented. This created unfulfilled expectations among the community, and maylead to lack of participation, especially if no visible change takes place within the communities (particularly ifprojects are not implemented over a reasonable time-frame).

Second, local governments did not clearly identify criteria for projects’ approval or rejection. There was no clearfinancial limitation regarding the level of decision-making that could be made at the village and parish levels.Considering that funding depended on revenues generated in the district and allocations in the nationalbudget, there were limitations in implementing projects identified in participatory planning.

Third, the incipient multiparty democratic system in Uganda requires that more care be taken in the finalselection of projects in order to ensure funding decisions are not made along political party lines. Similarly,equity in the allocation of funding from the national to the district level is of paramount importance in orderto ensure the transparency and accountability of the process. UNDP did not adequately address these issues.

Fourth, the replicability of the participatory process depends on how the approach is adapted across differentdistricts, which have limited levels of resources and capacities. Since the graduated tax collection was abolished,the districts have limited sources of revenue, and appear more inclined to use their fund allocations for urgentcommunity needs rather than spend on participatory planning processes. In the districts where participatoryplanning was implemented, UNDP supported all expenses incurred, such as village facilitators to map processand draw up village development plans. However, as the project expanded its coverage from eight to tendistricts, UNDP did not have funds for mobilizing people at the community level. There were limitations inensuring that local governments mobilized human resources required for participatory planning.

This raises the question whether community participation was genuine or based on the incentives provided bythe project budget. Sustainable community-based participation cannot be founded on financial incentives.This appears to be a major constraint across a range of interventions in Uganda, as participation is directlyrelated to incentives.



design continues to be weak.71 It is unclear howUNDP has determined the balance betweenpolicy and upstream support versus downstreaminterventions; this needs to be addressed in thenext country programme. In particular, outcomemonitoring has been weak, which requiressufficient attention during the design of the nextcountry programme.

Enhancing transparency and accountability

A large component of UNDP support ingovernance was aimed at furthering transparencyand accountability in government institutions.The increased visibility of institutions oftransparency and accountability, the growingdemand for accountability, action against lawbreakers at all levels and the increase in publicutilization of the IGG services indicate a positivechange in institutional and societal values, ethicsand attitudes towards rights.72 The DEI, theIGG and the Public Procurement and Disposalof Public Assets Authority are public institutionswith the common goals of improvingtransparency and accountability in publicadministration through strategic alliances withcivil society and the private sector. Similarly, theintroduction of a rights- based approach by theUganda Human Rights Commission, parliamen-tary outreach programmes to local governmentand local councils, and activities supporting theDEI have contributed to raising awareness aboutthe roles of citizens in monitoring anddemanding further accountability of publicinstitutions and elected representatives. UNDPsupport contributed to increased knowledge

about the rule of law, the justice system andinstitutions to seek redress once aggrieved.

In the parliament project, there were componentsaimed at addressing accountability andtransparency at the national and local levels.Parliamentary public outreach programmes andthe work of special committees (such as thePublic Accounts Committee or the LocalGovernment Accounts Committee) haveestablished local governance structures andinstitutional linkages accessible to the public.

UNDP support during the two countryprogrammes demonstrated responsiveness tocritical needs in enhancing transparency andaccountability of public institutions. There wereindications that some of the interventions,although small in scope, were catalytic in drawingattention to the support these institutionsrequired (for example, support to the Parliamentand the IGG).73 In more than one case, UNDPsupport to the institution was used as seedmoney, with other donors brought on board towiden the support to the institutions. Althoughthere has been marginal improvement in theTransparency International rating of perceivedcorruption in Uganda, corruption in publicinstitutions remains a challenge. It was evidentthat this is a potential area for future support, asthe demand for anti- corruption services inUganda has increased. At least 80 percent of thepublic are aware of the IGG.74 It was notpossible for the evaluation to determine thecontribution of UNDP support to promotingtransparency and accountability.

70. For example, see: Government of Uganda and UNDP, ‘Evaluation of Increased Public Sector Efficiency Transparencyand Accountability’, report for the Government of Uganda and UNDP Good Governance for Poverty EradicationProgramme, September 2005; ‘Democratic Governance: Mid- Term Outcome Evaluation Report’, October 2008. Thiswas also mentioned in an April 2009 governance scoping paper carried out prior to the preparation of the new country programme.

71. Government of Uganda and UNDP, ‘Evaluation of Increased Public Sector Efficiency Transparency and Accountability’,report for the Government of Uganda and UNDP Good Governance for Poverty Eradication Programme, September2005, p. viii.

72. The IGG office, under the second country programme, was supported by the work of five United Nations Volunteers,who helped improve human resource capacity for investigation, inspection and prosecution. One of the volunteers washired by the IGG with funds from other sources. A positive outcome is the increased visibility of the IGG office and itsfunctions in demanding and bringing accountability to the public, both at the national and the district level.

73. These initiatives have attracted support from other aid agencies, such as the African Development Bank and Irish Aid.74. As reported during an interview with IGG staff. The evaluation team did not have alternative views on this.



The support to the DEI was mainly at thedistrict level. Like the IGG, the DEI improvedvisibility of the institutions in districts. Thesupport to the DEI was intended to enable localgovernments to understand how ethics andintegrity affect democracy and their importanceas tools in reducing corruption. District integritypromotion centres were established in 41 localgovernments. This has attracted additionalsupport, including that of the MillenniumChallenge funds. However, opportunity wasmissed to advance dialogue between the DEI andthe IGG on ways of consolidating approaches inthe districts for enhanced gains. While thesupport of UNDP was perceived as timely andrelevant, additional efforts were seen as requiredfor mainstreaming ethics and integrity monitor-ing into district plans.

The Public Procurement and Disposal of PublicAssets Authority is an accountability- enhancinginstitution, which was supported to improvecapacity for public procurement systems as ameasure of democratic transition. As in otherburgeoning institutions, improved efficiency,accountability and transparency in services werethe key outputs provided. Although the govern-ment has made significant progress in strength-ening public financial management systems,challenges remain in the area of management ofpublic funds and transparency in procurement. Itwas not possible for the ADR to fully ascertainthe results and possible contributions of UNDPinterventions in this area.

Strengthening justice and human rights

To ensure speedy justice and reduce the caseloadof the upper courts, the Government of Uganda,since the 1990s, has taken measures to further therole of local governments to supplement the workof the official justice system. Over the years, thestructures became constrained due to the lack oftechnical skills or knowledge among local leadersto guide and implement standard justiceprocedures. Building on a pilot initiative byUNCDF, the support of UNDP was aimed at

strengthening the administrative management ofthe LCCs. The support was provided in fivedistricts, and document review indicates that thescope was limited and results were not evident.UNDP also supported the Uganda HumanRights Commission in integrating a rights- basedapproach. While the approach generated consid-erable enthusiasm, it is too early to observeresults of such interventions. There wereanecdotal accounts that a few governmentinstitutions are integrating a rights- basedapproach into their planning. As this is a newapproach that is little known or applied to date,the Uganda Human Rights Commission is usingthe guidelines developed through UNDP support.

A key question is the extent to which UNDPassistance contributed to improving access tojustice and human rights. While outputs wereevident, the depth of assistance compared toneeds was small. The LCCs contributed tolowering the caseload; the trust of localcommunities in this lower court was improved,and the court’s potential and contribution wereacknowledged by its umbrella organization, theJustice Law and Order Secretariat. The LCCswere also established in northern Uganda, whereinternally displaced person camps were located,and where services were needed most due to highconcentration of camps. It was found that thesupport to the LCCs was not systematic and didnot receive the attention it deserved in theUNDP programme. For sustainable results,support to the LCCs should not only be compre-hensive, but should also have simultaneousengagement at the national level in order toensure that the LCCs have adequate resources.As a one- time project, the support of UNDP wasnot embedded into the longer- term approach ofUNDP to develop national capacities. Landdisputes pose a significant development challengeand are a major threat to reconciliation innorthern Uganda. This sensitive issue is complexin terms of providing justice, and strengtheningthe LCCs is critical in this context.75

75. The World Bank undertook a study in May 2009 to point to some possible solutions; see The World Bank, ‘Post- ConflictLand Policy and Administration Options – The Case of Northern Uganda’, Uganda, May 2009.



4.2 POVERTY REDUCTION ANDSUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS

Uganda has had sustained and positive economicgrowth since the 1990s. However, despite adecline in poverty trends, there are significantregional disparities in poverty, and a large portionof the population is poor. Responding to govern-ment efforts to reduce poverty, UNDP providedsupport during the second country programme inorder to strengthen capacities of the local govern-ment to better engage in policies andprogrammes related to poverty reduction, andsupported the development of small- scale and micro- enterprises as a means of fighting poverty.This was continued in the ongoing programme,with the focus primarily on support to the privatesector and sustainable livelihoods in order toincrease the income of poor households. Theprogramme supported by UNDP was aimed at:increasing national capacity for monitoring andpolicy dialogue on MDG progress; furtheringintegration of local initiatives into nationalstrategies for poverty reduction; and enhancingsustainable land management in rangelands development.

For the last nine years, UNDP support to povertyreduction in Uganda was mainly within theparameters of support to the PEAP. Under thesecond country programme, interventions wereaimed at strengthening enterprise developmentand microfinance services that empoweredcommunities. This was furthered in the thirdcountry programme in order to sustain theinterventions and outcomes of the support in theprevious programme.

In the previous and ongoing programmes, therewere 29 interventions in the area of povertyreduction. The distribution of interventions foractivities is presented in Table 7. The countryoffice incorporated environment as a componentof poverty reduction in order to highlight thelinkages between environmental degradation andsustainable livelihoods.

One of the major economic challenges in Ugandais to find a sustainable and alternative source ofincome from non- agricultural activities. UNDPsupported privatesector development as a meansof fighting poverty. Interventions were aimed atdeveloping the locallevel private sector andstrengthening small and medium enterprises(through support to Enterprise Uganda). In thearea of privatesector development, attention waspaid to coverage so that most regions couldadequately benefit from the decentralizedstructures that were created at the district level(originally district promotion centres). Thegeographical coverage in 11 districts wasequitably undertaken, and all regions— includingthose affected by the conflict in the north— were included for programme support. Similarly,the 17 microfinance institutions and VillageSavings and Credit Institutions (VSCIs) werelocated across the country, including the conflict- affected areas.

The environmental interventions, on the otherhand, comprised a number of isolated interven-tions. This is discussed in Section 4.2.3, as therewere no evident linkages with the povertyreduction intervention.

Table 7. Poverty reduction and sustainable livelihood activity areas and interventions

Activity areas Number of interventions

Private-sector development 15

Income generation and sustainable livelihoods 4

Strengthening of small and medium enterprises 2

Environment (various areas) 8

Total 29



4.2.1 POLICY SUPPORT AND ENHANCING MDGs

With few exceptions, UNDP appeared to placemore emphasis on programmes than on directsupport to policy- making in this practice area.One area where the organization did contributeto policy- making was in providing support to thedrafting of the Micro- Finance Deposit TakingAct, approved by the Parliament in 2003. Interms of support provided to private- sectorcompanies, such as Enterprise Uganda, it is not clear if this overwhelmingly successfulexample has been used to inform private- sectordevelopment policies in Uganda, despite havingshown a very interesting potential in the BusinessLinkage Programme.

Support to attaining the MDGs is an importantcomponent of the UNDP poverty- reductionprogramme and has been one of the key areas ofUNDP intervention in the two countryprogrammes under review. With the larger aim ofcontributing to pro- poor policies and reducingpoverty, UNDP interventions intended toincrease national government capacities tomonitor progress towards achieving the MDGsand to develop practices that enhance sustainablelivelihoods and income generation.

Uganda had mixed results in achieving theMDGs. According to a recent MDG monitoringreport (2007–2008), significant progress has beenmade towards achieving universal primaryeducation, eradicating extreme poverty, attaininggender equity and combating HIV/AIDS. Thegovernment is also well positioned to achieve thetarget of reducing hunger.76 While the MDGsare incorporated in the PEAP in the areas ofhealth, education, and water and sanitation, thereare disparities between PEAP and MDG targets.The PEAP target for poverty reduction is moreambitious than that of the MDGs, while PEAPtargets for child mortality and maternal healthare lower. The harmonization of MDG targets

remains an issue, particularly in the area ofmaternal health.

UNDP support to poverty monitoring andMDG reporting had been effective from anoutput standpoint. Local MDG reports havebeen an important source of information forgovernment monitoring, and officials considerthese publications useful. The government heldthe view that the MDGs should be theframework for defining national developmentplans and priorities, and sustained efforts areneeded to solidify this approach. However, therewere limitations from the perspective ofcontributing to results. There was limitedevidence to suggest that monitoring andreporting informed government decision- makingand policy. Interventions such as these were notsufficient to enhance policy discussions or furtherthe participation of various stakeholders.

It is notable that PEAP monitoring, which ismanaged by the Office of the Prime Minister,overlaps with poverty monitoring and MDGreporting. The relevance of UNDP- supportedpoverty monitoring could have been furtherenhanced, if it were aligned with the existinggovernment monitoring exercise. UNDP shouldtake sufficient measures in the forthcomingprogramme to integrate the two activities.

UNDP did not provide regular support to thepublication of National Human DevelopmentReports (NHDRs) on critical developmentissues. Uganda has good statistics on poverty andthe social sector. However, there is a need formore structured information on key developmentissues to provide feedback to policy makers, andUNDP did not identify or fill such strategic gaps.NHDRs, which provide an alternative perspec-tive on key development issues to informdevelopment strategy, are a useful advocacy tool.UNDP was more consistent in its support toNHDRs from 1997 to 200077 than during the

76. See Chapter 2, Progress in Achieving MDGs.77. UNDP Uganda Human Development Reports: ‘The Challenge of Employment- Creation in Uganda’ (2000), ‘Causes

and Consequences of Rural Poverty’ (1998), ‘General Human Development Report’ (1997), ‘General HumanDevelopment Report’ (1996).



period under review, when only three NHDRswere produced. These recent reports addressedagriculture, linkages between the environmentand human development, and the challenges of HIV/AIDS.78

There were perceptions that the quality ofNHDRs could be further improved. Governmentrepresentatives and other stakeholders working inthe area of agriculture had the perception that theNHDR on agriculture could have been of betterquality. UNDP should take sufficient measures toensure that the reports produced are of appropri-ate quality and credibility, if they are to be of usefor development stakeholders and inform policy.The evaluation recommends that UNDP supportan NHDR on linkages among post- conflictreconstruction, national development strategiesand gender issues in development.

The extent to which UNDP furthered the partic-ipation of district governments and civil societyor engaged policy makers in prioritizing theMDGs was limited. While some ad hoc supportwas provided to government- organized workshopsthat held consultations with stakeholders, therewas no strategic approach to enhancing widerparticipation in MDG- related issues. In 2007,the districts of Soroti and Kasese producedreports on localizing the MDGs. UNDP did notadequately use other district- level programmesimplemented through UNDP support toenhance the understanding of the MDGs. A fewinitiatives by northern district administrationsplaced emphasis on some MDG areas inplanning and budgeting, without UNDP inputs.Considering the challenge of preparing districtreports given the large number of districts inUganda, UNDP should have piloted regionalMDG reporting, which could have informedregional development and recovery plans (such asthe PRDP) and the broader recovery andreconstruction processes. Although UNDP hadcarried out specific interventions on gender,

environment and HIV/AIDS, it was not evidenthow these informed MDG processes in Uganda.

While the UNDP programme frameworkintended to further pro- poor policies in thePEAP, it was unclear how various interventionsand outputs contributed to policies in the areas of privatesector support and attaining the MDGs,particularly in strengthening social servicedelivery. The outcomes and indicators used, suchas the rate of achieving MDG targets, wereoverly ambitious in view of the limited scale ofUNDP interventions.

There are formidable challenges to achieving theMDGs in the area of health, and regional dispar-ities in poverty reduction continue to be high.There is a critical need for new policies to guidethe allocation of resources to the social sector andto foster greater accountability of public financemanagement. UNDP role in supporting govern-ment on these issues was not evident.

UNDP correctly identified private- sectorsupport as a practice for supporting the goal ofpoverty reduction and contributed to developingan enabling environment. Still, further efforts areneeded to address policy issues in this area,particularly to scale up anti- poverty practices,strengthen the growth of small and medium- sized enterprises, and support a competitivemarket. Agencies such as The World Bankprovided more extensive private- sectorprogramme support. The evaluation was unableto gauge UNDP engagement in private- sectorworking groups, although there were someindications that the organization was a relativelypassive participant.

Addressing the MDGs in post- conflict situationsis one area in which UNDP is well positioned toplay a more proactive role in informing andsupporting governments. Post- conflict situationsoften have a debilitating effect on progress towards

78. UNDP Uganda Human Development Reports: ‘Rediscovering Agriculture for Human Development’ (2007); ‘LinkingEnvironment to Human Development – A Deliberate Choice’ (2005); ‘The Challenge of HIV/AIDS – Maintaining theMomentum of Success’ (2002).



the MDGs. Considering regional variations inpoverty reduction, health (particularly maternalhealth) and social services, it is essential that post- conflict dynamics are sufficiently factoredinto Uganda’s national development strategy.

In addition to interventions in war- affecteddistricts, UNDP has implemented micro- levelinterventions in the Karamoja region, wherestarvation and extreme poverty are prevalent.However, facilitating policy discussions onmainstreaming the MDGs in the north and north- east development strategies and on MDGmonitoring did not receive adequate attention inUNDP programmes. While some policies have beenoutlined for northern Uganda, most stakeholdersconsulted were of the view that additionalemphasis should be given to the MDGs innational development policy and in addressingregional disparities. Despite its programmepresence in northern Uganda and at the centre,UNDP has been less responsive to strategic issues.

Uganda is a pilot country for the MillenniumVillage Project, which began in 2006 in the south- western Ruhmira village of Isingirodistrict. While the Uganda project was not partof those reviewed by this ADR, UNDP shoulduse lessons from it to further a more integratedapproach to achieving the MDGs in Uganda.

4.2.2 SUPPORT TO PRIVATE- SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

As part of the local povertyreduction initiatives,UNDP supported incomegeneration andsustainable livelihood and private- sectordevelopment. This was towards achieving theoutcome to support integration of local initiativesinto national strategies for poverty reduction.This was in alignment with the goal outlined inthe PEAP to “increase the ability of the poor toraise their incomes”. UNDP supported establish-ing 11 district promotional centres in the second

country programme, which have since beenconverted into private limited liability companiesreferred to as Private Sector PromotionCompanies (PSPCs). The other initiativesduring the previous and ongoing programmesinclude support to establishing 17 VSCIs andEnterprise Uganda, a national public institutionmandated to develop and build entrepreneurialcapacity within the private sector.

At the national level, the main thrust of UNDPsupport was placed on developing EnterpriseUganda, a model for privatesector businessdevelopment. District promotional centres,PSPCs, and Enterprise Uganda were establishedas independent and viable service providers forthe development and promotion of small and medium- size enterprises by providing a compre-hensive and integrated range of services.79

Enterprise Uganda— which successfully pilotedthe Business Linkage Programme with supportfrom the Government of Uganda and otheragencies, including Enterprise Africa, theGerman Technical Cooperation Agency, SwedishInternational Development Cooperation Agencyand the United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development— is considered to be one of themost visible and successful UNDP interventionsby most implementing and development partners.

Although it aimed at contributing to domesticinvestments, the programme outcome was largelyat the local level rather than at the national level.In the Business Linkage Programme, all 26participating small and medium- size enterprisesimproved efficiency by 25 percent, expanded thescale of their businesses by over 200 percent,increased employment by 100 percent anddiversified business services. Although this mayonly be a small contribution to developmentresults, the potential for job creation, increasedtax revenue remittance and local market invest-ment were evident.80

79. UNDP provided institutional support to both Enterprise Uganda and the district promotional centres in the first phase,moving towards a programme approach in the second phase of support (e.g., only funding the portion of costs that direct-ly related to services commissioned by UNDP).

80. Monthly turnover for nine small and medium- size enterprises rose from $9 million to $14 million.



Enterprise Uganda is perceived by stakeholders(implementing partners and those working in privatesector development) as a successfulexample of privatesector development and ashaving the potential for its linkage capacity toinfluence the productive sector. This potential,however, has not been fully realized. EnterpriseUganda has since attracted a few more donors,although the funds are not adequate for furtherscaling up. While the support of UNDP has beencritical, it was not evident how this modelinforms privatesector development policy.

Strengthening private enterprise at the local level

UNDP supported the private sector at the locallevel as a key area in strengthening livelihoodopportunities. With the exception of EnterpriseUganda, all other interventions addressedregional and local organizations and institutions,such as district promotional centres/PSPCs, microfinance institutions and VSCIs.

The expected outcome was that the districtpromotional centres would provide developmentservices to communities, with a particular focuson special interest groups (e.g., people living withHIV/AIDS, unemployed youth, persons withdisabilities and women) in participatory develop-ment and gender planning. The second countryprogramme provided institutional support to thePSPCs, while the third country programme

treated them as clients in the implementation of UNDP- supported activities.

The PSPCs are implementing partner institutionsproviding core services and products to their districts,with a focus on promoting micro- enterprises andsmall and medium- size enterprises, while supporting microfinance institutions and the VSCIs.Discussions with various stakeholders involved inthis intervention— including local governmentleaders, representatives of micro- enterprises andstaff employed by the PSPCs— show that theUNDP initiative was highly appreciated, sincethe PSPCs have contributed to capacity develop-ment within their districts. The beneficiariesperceived the transition from full UNDP supportto a more autonomous governing system as abrupt,not as a phased approach to sustain operationalcosts— though the PSPCs were aware of thegradual shift to self- reliant structures. However,the companies are still in business, and theservices they provide are considered useful.

The outreach of the PSPCs was found to behigh. According to the PSPCs, more than 31,000people in rural areas participated in training ofone kind or other. District staff has been trained,and a number of micro- enterprises and nationaland international NGOs have benefited directlyfrom the capacity development programmes— orbenefited indirectly from the persons trainedunder the programmes.

Box 4. Challenges of ‘hand out’ practices

During the evaluation, it was evident that the PSPCs did not charge for the services provided. The evaluationteam asked the managers of the PSPCs why they did not charge UNDP beneficiaries for services. Previously,UNDP fully funded training and facilitated all other requirements, including publishing materials, issuingtransportation cost refunds to participants and providing an allowance for training. One of the issues was thatother agencies providing similar services did not charge for the services and that there was reluctance frombeneficiaries to pay for services. Lack of harmonized funding approaches among development partners andcivil society organizations to charge for services contributed to less sustainable service provision.

UNDP made cost-sharing optional, resulting in the PSPCs not charging for services. It was found that a cost-sharing approach, despite initial difficulties in attracting beneficiaries, would have resulted in better sustain-ability of the interventions. This was, however, not tried by all the PSPCs. When the PSPCs attempted tointroduce the cost-sharing or cost recovery approaches, some beneficiaries were unwilling to pay for theservices. Reluctance to pay for services was attributed to ‘donor hand out’ dependency syndrome and benefi-ciaries’ inability to afford them.



Both district promotion centres and the PSPCshave received the services of InstitutionalDevelopment Advisers through United NationsVolunteers (UNV), in order to build PSPCcapacities to effectively comply with their mandate.Volunteers consulted during the evaluation exerciseappeared to be professional, knowledgeable anddeeply involved in the operations of their respectiveassignments, including PSPCs. However, it wasdifficult to measure capacity development in someprojects that involved UNV, since it appeared moreas substituting capacities rather than supportingcapacity development. It may be necessary toreconsider the role of UNV within workprogrammes in order to focus on capacity- building.

The sustainability of the PSPCs is mixed. Somewere able to raise revenue and mobilize funds tosustain their activities after the funding period ofUNDP. The change in UNDP funding involvedthe transformation of district promotion centresfrom fully supported by UNDP to privatecompanies, with management by a regionalexecutive board and a new staff structure in manycases, as salary scales were revised. This transfor-mation also entailed diversifying activities andexpanding the PSPC funding base, but this wasunevenly understood and applied. The issue ofsustainability is not yet known for a number ofthe PSPCs met by the evaluation team.

While the PSPCs work effectively and arerecognized by local governments and clients as privatesector development supporters, theircontinuation is not guaranteed because of weakbusiness plans and a constraining environment.On one hand, the PSPCs should ensure a clientbase that is able to pay for their services, but thisentails focusing on clients that can afford to paythe fees. On the other hand, UNDP is concernedthat as part of its poverty alleviation focus, itshould also provide services to beneficiaries whorequire the services but may not be in a positionto pay market rates (see Box 4).

Delayed disbursement of funds because ofprocurement procedures was cited by themajority of privatesector partners as a factor that

constrained and negatively affected programmeimplementation. Some interviewees believed thedelay was caused by the execution through theALD/MFPED. The PSPCs felt the fundingdisbursements improved when the programmewas coordinated directly by MFPED.

Enhancing microfinance institutions

UNDP provided capacity- building for thedevelopment of microfinance institutions. Micro- enterprises are important in Uganda,because a significant portion of the GDP isgenerated from informal activities. To formalizesuch activities, the government recognized that itis necessary to establish a regulatory frameworkfor the microfinance industry. There was also aneed for strengthening micro- enterprises and smalland medium- size enterprises, policy formulationcapacities and coordination mechanisms.

UNDP supported drafting legislation for microfinance institutions during the second countryprogramme. UNDP supported the drafting ofthe Micro- Finance Deposit- Taking Bill, adoptedby Parliament in 2003 as the Micro- Finance Deposit- Taking Act. The Act provided a legaland regulatory framework for Tier-3 microfinance institutions.

Strengthening Village Saving and Credit Institutions

UNDP supported the capacity development ofVSCIs. The intent was to provide technicalassistance to strengthen the governance andoperational capacity of 17 selected VSCIs by2005, enabling them to act as pilots that offerimproved microfinance services to the poor. Itwas found that the VSCIs have been institution-alized, and communities are now effectively andefficiently managing and offering micro- financeservices. Some of the VSCIs manage income- generating activities such as agro- basedenterprises, which visibly improved the liveli-hoods of members, something highlighted bybeneficiaries themselves.

A number of microfinance institutions aresuccessful over five years after starting. In terms



of national priorities, services from establishedSavings and Credit Cooperative Organizationsare with the new national development theme of‘Growth, Employment and Prosperity’. UNDPcontributed to the implementation of thenational microfinance policy and outreach planand framework for Micro Deposit- TakingInstitutions. It has been demonstrated that suchsupport offers the potential to develop grass- roots livelihood support, addressing the nationalaspiration for growth and prosperity for all. The micro- enterprises or micro- financing businessesthat made profits appear to be sustainable. Thissuccess is attributed to having an integrated andlocal ownership approach, with good governingstructures at the design stage of the project.

There was significant growth of the loanportfolio of the VSCIs visited by the ADR team,even in conflict- affected areas. For example, oneof the VSCIs demonstrated the capacity tomanage and expand its loan portfolio from amere $3,400 to $300,000 in six years, withservices managed by the local community in thearea affected by civil war and insecurity. Inanother instance, a village institution in a morepeaceful area witnessed unprecedented growth toa portfolio of $6 million, also managed by local grass- roots personnel. Members of such institutionsare benefiting from loan services with an annualinterest of 1 to 5 percent without any collateralrequirements, compared to 18 to 30 percentoffered by banks and larger credit institutions.Credit was often accessed to meet social needs,such as paying for school fees or health bills.

4.2.3 ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

The third outcome of the country programme inthe area of poverty reduction was to developstrategies for sustainable land management inrangelands development. While UNDP hadinitially developed five separate outcomes forenvironment, they were compressed into a single

one. This single outcome did not adequately reflectthe range of the environmental interventions inthe portfolio or what the interventions entailed.

Uganda is severely affected by environmentaldegradation. National data shows that until 2004,natural resource degradation was estimated tocost the country approximately 17 percent ofgross national income per year, with 6 percentassociated with forest degradation and theremaining 11 percent with soil degradation. Onaverage, about 90 percent of energy is derivedfrom biomass (mainly firewood and charcoal), 8percent from petroleum fuels and 2 percent fromelectricity. Less than 1 percent of the ruralpopulation has access to electricity, which issignificant given the fact that over 85 percent ofthe Ugandan population live in rural areas.81

Use of biomass energy in form of firewood andcharcoal led to rampant deforestation andenvironmental degradation. In 2006, householdconsumption of firewood and charcoal wasreported to have increased by 81 percent, andUganda still faces an environmental challenge ofreversing losses of environmental fuelresources.82 The PEAP evaluation shows thatfrom a baseline value of 24 percent of land underforest cover in 2002–2003, an increase of 3percent had been achieved by 2007–2008, whichis closer to the target of 30 percent by2013–2014. The evaluation, however, points outthat the distance travelled by villagers to firewoodsource was increasing.

Most UNDP environment programme interven-tions were designed to share best practices, witha few targeting capacity development. Under thesecond country programme, five projects wereimplemented aimed at promoting biodiversityconservation for cross- border ecosystems, cleanerenergy through adoption of solar voltaic systems,inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, Albertinerift biodiversity conservation and sustainable

81. Oxford Policy Management, ‘Independent Evaluation of Uganda’s poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)’, FinalSynthesis Report, July 2008.

82. Ibid.



land management. The ongoing countryprogramme supported small projects that ranged from mainstreaming environment intodevelopment plans of wetland, forest, land and cross- border ecosystem bio- conservation andpromoting energy access, thus raising the total ofexpected outcomes to five. While compressingseveral outcomes into one for strengtheningsustainable environment contributed to lack of clear linkages between interventions andintended outcome, the evaluation found that theinterventions lacked enough depth to make anymeaningful contribution.

The support of UNDP through small projectswas important to create awareness that theenvironment affected the livelihoods of the poorand hence should be given due attention whileaddressing poverty. This, however, did notsufficiently inform government policy andpractice. While the government was willing tosupport environmental concerns, there was nocorresponding resource commitment.

The government developed a strategy to workwith agencies that had matching funds andsupported environment- related issues. TheNational Environmental Management Authorityworked with districts to mainstream environ-mental concerns. The Authority received supportfrom other projects and organizations— such asthe International Union for Conservation ofNature’s landscape project, CARE Internationaland the Global Environment Facility smallgrants programme— to carry forward itsobjectives. The strategy appeared successful inthe pilot districts, and there is the potential for itsadoption in other locations.

Some of the interventions supported by UNDPhad potential for contributing to results.Interventions such as the charcoal project werewell conceived and government ownership hasbeen positive, with potential for achieving results.The Ministry of Energy has been supporting thecharcoal initiative on efficient productionthrough the charcoal value chain. In the pastthree years, the ministry has taken measures for

the mobilization and training of charcoalproducers, the promotion of efficient treeharvesting methods and improved charcoalproduction technologies. Efforts were also madeto put in place a regulatory framework for thecontrol of charcoal production. The Ministry ofAgriculture is in the process of developing aproject for sustainable land management, whereissues related to sustainable charcoal productionare a critical component, considering thatcharcoal production is a major contributor toland degradation. What is important is theparticipation of both ministries in the landmanagement project through a joint inter- ministerial coordination committee.

The large environmental intervention in terms offunding was the Albertine Forest project. Theproject received $3.7 million, but it wasconceived 10 years ago and has just been initiatedwith a revised objective and a number ofimplementation challenges, including shiftingpriorities among potential funding partners. Theoriginal project design was intended to leverageover $10 million, but Global EnvironmentFacility funds presently remain the soleconfirmed commitment.

There were implementation and deliveryshortfalls, which limited effectiveness of UNDPsupport in terms of contribution to results.Interventions include the slum upgrade projectand the West Nile initiative, which were poorlyconceptualized at the design stage. There was amissed opportunity in supporting quality data formonitoring outcome indicators of the nationalenvironment plan. Despite being in line withnational priorities and being responsive to needsin the areas of biodiversity conservation, energyaccess for productive use and management ofnatural resources, numerous small interventionsdid not yield the desired outcomes outlined inthe country programme. There were pilotprojects that were so small in scope (e.g., theenergy multi- platform project) that there were nocomparative advantages for UNDP to engage inthem. These initiatives could have been betterhandled by NGOs.


4 3

4.3 CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY

For more than two decades, armed conflict in thedistricts of Acholi and Lango in the Tesso andWest Nile subregions have resulted in widespreadhumanitarian needs in northern Uganda. Therewas extensive loss of life, and nearly 2 millionpeople lost their livelihoods or were displaced.The economic systems collapsed, and an alreadyrudimentary public infrastructure was severelydamaged and rendered dysfunctional. With thesituation slowly reverting to normalcy during thepast two years, about 70 percent of the displacedpopulation has returned to their original habitation.The perpetual humanitarian situation constraineddevelopment in war- affected districts. Whilethere are still areas where the situation is of ahumanitarian nature, the challenge for thegovernment and international agencies workingin Uganda is to address both humanitarian anddevelopment issues simultaneously.

Post- conflict recovery and reconstruction issueswere included in the 2004 PEAP, and largegovernment programmes (e.g., KIDDP, theNorthern Uganda Rehabilitation Programmeand the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund)have been implemented in northern Uganda inthe past decade. More recently, the governmentdeveloped the PRDP, outlining priority areas fordevelopment in northern Uganda. With theincrease in the incidence of poverty in northernUganda compared to rest of the country, publicinvestment in addressing poverty and regionalimbalances remains an issue. Further attention isseen as being required to ensure conditions thatprecipitate conflict are minimized.

There is significant donor presence in northernUganda, particularly in the Gulu district.Recently, there has been a shift in focus amongdonor agencies from the Acholi and Langoregions to the Karamoja region. The PRDP waslaunched in August 2008. However, itsimplementation has been inconclusive, andlinkages between the northern Uganda develop-

ment strategy and national development strategyremain unclear. Notwithstanding the efforts ofthe government to establish institutionalmechanisms to address post- conflict humanitar-ian and development needs, these structures areevolving and lack adequate human and financialresources. While the government is in the processof addressing post- conflict reconstruction andregional disparities, the coordination of interna-tional donor recovery and reconstructionresponse leaves much to be desired. In manyways, the implementation of the PRDP will bethe beginning of a strategic development agendafor northern Uganda and not an end in itself.More concerted efforts will be required in orderto integrate northern Uganda issues in thenational development agenda.

UNDP support to post- conflict recovery startedduring the second country programme, with thesupport to Emergency Action Plan and DistrictDisaster Management Coordinators (DDMCs).In response to the challenging situation innorthern Uganda, a more structured response wasdeveloped by UNDP in 2004. Considering that itwas towards the end of second countryprogramme, the outcomes of the conflict preven-tion and recovery interventions were outlined inthe TRP. The initiative was intended to addresshumanitarian and development challenges innorthern and north- eastern Uganda83 wasplanned as a pilot programme for a year, withfurther scaling up subject to mobilization offunds. Delayed by a year, the TRP wasimplemented in 2005. The TRP agenda wasfurthered in the ongoing country programme,and the conflict prevention and recoverycomponent aims to further human security,support community- based reintegration ofinternally displaced persons and ex- combatants,and address the gender dimensions of conflict. Aspart of the TRP and the ongoing programme,several interventions of different time durationsare being implemented at the national anddistrict levels. UNDP was the cluster lead for

83. The TRP was supported by funds from the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery and Traditional ResourcesAllocated to Core II.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N T R I B U T I O N T O D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S



early recovery. The UN Resident Coordinatorwas the Humanitarian Coordinator in Uganda.84

The outcomes of the conflict prevention andrecovery component aimed to: strengthen thenational capacities for conflict resolution, peace- building and reconciliation processes; strengthennational capacities for recovery in conflict- affected areas; create a secure environment forrecovery and development; and strengthennational capacities to reduce threats and theeffects of land mines and unexploded ordnance.The programme used a combination of directand national implementation modalities (theformer being more prevalent), with UNDP beingresponsible for delivery of programme outputsand finance management.

There have been 12 different interventions inconflict prevention and recovery, essentiallytargeting four outcome areas. (See Table 8.)

UNDP programme interventions were found tobe highly relevant in the context of humanitarianand development needs in northern Uganda.Most of the interventions are ongoing, and witha few exceptions, it is too early to evaluate forresults or to ascertain where results are manifest.The evaluation looked at the design andimplementation process of the programme in

order to draw lessons for strengthening thesupport to the government and for futureprogramming. UNDP interventions (e.g.,demining or support to the Office of the PrimeMinister in order to coordinate governmentinterventions in conflict- affected districts andoperationalize internally displaced person policy)have enhanced the government’s capacities tobetter respond to humanitarian needs and reducerisk to human security. The livelihood and earlyrecovery components were weak areas of theprogramme, with limited contribution torecovery processes. Policy engagement indefining the strategy for northern Uganda andKaramoja and in promoting post- conflictreconstruction in the national developmentstrategy has been minimal. There were limita-tions in the management and implementation ofthe programme, which have implications forcontribution to results.

4.3.1 POLICY SUPPORT

UNDP contributions have been important insupporting the formulation of internallydisplaced person and disaster prevention andmitigation policy, which are important todefining recovery and reconstruction in northernUganda. UNDP supported the secretariat of theJoint Monitoring Committee, comprising

84. The performance of humanitarian coordination and the role of the Humanitarian Coordinator are not within the scopeof this evaluation.

Table 8. Conflict prevention and recovery activities, interventions and funds allocated

Activity areas Number of interventions Total (US$ millions)

TRP and Crisis Mitigation and Recovery (support to theconflict-affected)

2 7.0

Human security (including internally displaced persons) 1 4.1

Establishing field offices 2 4.0

Mine action 4 5.6

Others (Karamoja, sexual and gender-based violence,Millennium Villages)

3 1.8

Total 12 22.5



governmental and international bodies tosupervise the implementation of a number ofemergency actions in the north, as outlined in theEmergency Humanitarian Action Plan, for oneyear. UNDP also supported the government indeveloping firearms policy. Despite providingtechnical support to policy formulation andhaving several joint interventions with thegovernment, UNDP could not leverage itsposition in larger policy engagement, particularlyon the PRDP and the KIDDP.

Discussions with government officials anddonors indicate that UNDP has not been anactive participant in policy discussions inUganda. While not providing budget support toa certain extent constrained UNDP role in policydiscussions, it was difficult to discern the extentof intellectual leadership UNDP provided ininforming policies on the greater north. Most policy- related support was by means of providingconsultants or logistical support. It appeared thatUNDP interventions were too focused onprojects and not adequately linked to emergingpolicy issues and debates.

Uganda has several policies and legislations thataddress post- conflict recovery and reconstruc-tion.85 However, discussions with the govern-ment and donor agencies indicated that moreeffort is needed to align recovery and reconstruc-tion policies with national development strate-gies. There was also a perception that there isneed for more participatory processes, for betterreintegration and the enhancement of socialservice delivery at the local level. However, it wasnot evident that UNDP engaged in any of theseissues. Furthering a holistic perspective on recoveryand reconstruction was found to be lacking in theprogramme. There was minimal attention paid inUNDP programmes to linkages between post- conflict reconstruction and governance, povertyreduction and the MDGs. Although there wassupport to personnel, poor attention was paid tostrengthening administrative systems.

It was not evident that UNDP paid specificattention to addressing the MDGs in a post- conflict situation through its interventions at thenational and district levels. Regional disparitiesin poverty and social services in Uganda are theresult of prolonged conflict, and more efforts areneeded to use the MDGs as tools in northernand north- eastern Uganda reconstructionpolicies. This came out strongly during discus-sions with all stakeholders. Given the ongoingprocess of finalizing the NDP, stakeholdersworking on development issues also felt that itwas an ideal time to emphasize some of these issues.UNDP programmes were too compartmental-ized to be able to engage in policy discussions orto provide alternate practices for a holisticrecovery and reconstruction. The forthcomingcountry programme should give specificemphasis to policy engagement, and UNDP micro- interventions should be designed toinform policies and practices of the government.

4.3.2 STRENGTHENING GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

Two outcomes in the area of crisis prevention andrecovery were aimed at strengthening nationalcapacities for conflict resolution, peace- building,recovery and reconciliation processes. Towardsthis, UNDP supported the Office of the PrimeMinister in strengthening institutional capacitiesin order to better coordinate northern Ugandarecovery activities and operationalize theinternally displaced person policy. UNDPsupport strengthened the staff position ofDepartment of Disaster Management andRefugees (DDMR) at the national level, andUNDP facilitated the establishment of theUganda Mine Action Centre and the setting upof District Disaster Management Committees.Key staff positions in the DDMR and theDDMC positions are funded by UNDP. Theseinclude the six DDMCs located at the district,and national coordinators for disaster management,conflict resolution and disaster information.

85. For example, the 2000 Amnesty Act, PRDP and the Karamoja Region Development Program.



The support to DDMCs enhanced coordinationof the post- conflict recovery activities at thedistrict level. Officials in Office of the PrimeMinister acknowledged that the enhanced staffposition at the DDMR enabled the governmentto respond better to emerging needs in northernUganda. Technical support was provided to thegovernment to advise on the PRDP strategythrough a consultant position. The Uganda MineAction Centre significantly reduced the risk dueto mines.

In terms of contribution to results, UNDPinterventions enhanced a structured approach to post- conflict management at the national level.Strengthening the capacities of the Office of thePrime Minister and creating the positions of theDDMCs is an important contribution of UNDP.The DDMCs act as focal points of the Office ofthe Prime Minister at the district, and have thepotential to inform decision- making at theOffice. They successfully augmented the districtadministration’s capacity in conflict- affecteddistricts, and in coordinating return and resettle-ment of ex- combatants. To a certain extent, theDDMCs filled the crucial gap of a disastermanagement focal point at the district, and hadthe potential to enable coordination withdifferent agencies working at the district level.The Office of the Prime Minister considered themonthly reports submitted by the DDMCs to bean important source of information for concur-rent action.

In the absence of an exit plan, it is not evidentwhether the government will sustain these effortsonce the programme is concluded. The coordina-tion between the district and the Office of thePrime Minister has enhanced return of internallydisplaced persons, although further efforts arerequired for resettlement. UNDP interventionsdid not have an exit strategy to enable a gradualshift of ownership of the interventions andoutcomes. An issue that requires further

attention in the forthcoming programme is thatthe present capacities of the DDMR, which inmany ways is UNDP- driven, should be systemat-ically enhanced so that activities are sustainedbeyond the project period. Despite the importantrole played by DDMCs at the district level, it wasnot evident that the district administration fullyperceived them as the staff of the district govern-ment. They continued to have the triple identityof the Office of the Prime Minister, UNDP anddistrict administration, which at times was adisadvantage to their tasks. It is important thatstaff supported by UNDP (including nationalUNV staff ) are contracted by and paid salariesthrough the district government.86

Although the DDMCs are part of the districtadministration, there has been some confusion atthe district level on their role and accountability vis- à- vis the district administration. While staffcontracts are issued by the government, theDDMCs do multiple reporting. A related issue isthe programme management structure of UNDP- supported interventions, noting that itcaused considerable delays in the implementationof the programme.87 UNDP should ensure thatgovernment structures are not heavily dependenton UNDP and can independently carry outprogramme implementation.

An issue that repeatedly arose pertained to delayscaused in programme implementation. Conflictprevention and recovery work in Ugandarequired quick and tangible results, as the focuswas on facilitating internally displaced persons’return and promoting recovery in post- conflictareas, while contributing to the restoration ofpeace and security. UNDP used a combination ofnational and direct implementation modalities.Out of 12 projects implemented, six are throughnational implementation, while the remainder usedirect implementation, though some started asdirect and transitioned to national implementation.

86. In some cases, while the contracts are from the government, salaries and other remuneration are paid by UNDP.87. UNDP, ‘Evaluation of Transition to Recovery Programme’, 2008.



The implementation modality has implicationsfor developing national capacities. The justifica-tion for following the direct implementationmodality has been that post- conflict interven-tions require speedy implementation, and thepolitical dynamics pertaining to northernUganda are not conducive to following a nationalapproach. However, none of the conflict preven-tion and recovery interventions that followed thedirect implementation modality demonstratedspeedy implementation. As discussed in Chapter6, it is important that UNDP demonstrateefficiency in programme implementation. It isalso important to strengthen governmentmechanisms for greater accountability andtransparency in function, so that programmeinterventions are implemented by governmentagencies. UNDP staff cannot substitute for lackof transparent government systems.

An important contribution of UNDP wasproviding support to the National Uganda DataCentre, located in the Office of the PrimeMinister (where information relevant forrecovery is available). The information coordina-tor at the national level compiled sets of data on ex- combatants and internally displaced persons.Some information compilation was carried outby the DDMCs. It was not possible for theevaluation to fully ascertain the quality and accessof the information.

In collaboration with the Uganda AmnestyCommission, the International Organization forMigration and the United States Agency forInternational Development, UNDP supportedthe Information, Counselling and ReferralServices Database. The database comprised acompilation of social services available forinternally displaced persons returning to theirearlier habitation.88 This information will beuseful to plan social infrastructure and informinternally displaced persons about facilities theycan access. However, the project was notcompleted due to lack of funds. Interviews with

the district government and internationalagencies indicated that the data collected duringthe course of the project is not in a form that canbe shared or used. While this is a missedopportunity for UNDP, the entire process wouldhave been better managed had UNDP developedeffective partnerships with international agenciesand the government, thus ensuring that futureefforts in the area will be a continuation ofinvestments already made. Similar informationsystems are being developed by The World Bank,and an operational system is expected to be madeavailable soon. For similarly critical interven-tions, UNDP should use core funds if externalfunding is not available.

4.3.3 ENHANCING HUMAN SECURITY

One of the conflict prevention and recoveryresults as part of the ongoing country programmewas the creation of a secure environment forrecovery and development in northern and north- eastern Uganda. Related interventionswere aimed at disarmament, demobilization andreintegration, and included support to theAmnesty Commission and demining, as well aslivelihood support for reintegration. Whilereintegration activities are yet to start, UNDPsupported disarmament and demobilizationactivities of the government during the ongoingprogramme. In the country programme, humansecurity activities entailed Karamoja voluntarydisarmament, small arms and light weapons(SALW), support to Fire Arms Policy and thedestruction of stockpiles of SALW. The analysisof findings in this section also includes MineAction, although under a different outcome, as itis a related intervention.

UNDP, along with other donors, providessupport to the Amnesty Commission, which wasset up in 2000 to implement various activitiesmandated by the Amnesty Act. UNDP interven-tions are intended to strengthen the capacities ofthe commission in the crucial area of trackingpersons who have been granted amnesty

88. Preliminary analysis report profiling from Amnesty Commission of Uganda, ICRS database, 2008.



(reporters) and reintegrating them into thecommunity. Complementing the activities ofother donors, UNDP interventions are aimed atproviding training, tools, credit, remunerativework and reintegration assistance to those whohave given up arms. As of the time of this evalua-tion, 26,000 ex- combatants received certificatesand reintegration packages. The AmnestyCommission was active in Gulu and was involvedin assessing beneficiary needs.

Providing ex- combatants with reintegrationpackages is only one aspect of reconciliation. Amore comprehensive peace- building programmethat involves the host communities themselves isneeded. Specific training in conflict- mitigationskills at the community level, conducted in aparticipatory fashion and building on existingtraditional mechanisms, needs to be included in acomprehensive programme design gearedtowards peace- building. While UNDP hasdeveloped a comprehensive programme address-ing various dimensions of post- conflict recoveryand reintegration and human security,implementation remains an issue.

In 2005, UNDP supported the establishment ofthe Uganda Mine Action Centre,89 which set upunits in four districts in order to engage indemining and unexploded ordnance destruction.The Government of Uganda, in compliance withinternational conventions, has set August 2009 asthe deadline for completing the clearing of mine- infested areas, and the demining centres areconfident of meeting this deadline.

However, risks related to unexploded ordnancecontinue, and the interventions in the mostimportant area of SALW reduction did not

receive the emphasis they deserved inprogramme implementation. There were alsolimitations on UNDP support to victimassistance and on the creation of awareness ofrisk from mines and unexploded ordnance.

Although the evaluation did not cover interven-tions in Karamoja, discussions with officialsindicated that support was provided to weaponstorage and registration, and to the destruction of60,000 tons of stockpiles. This was considered assignificant in view of the large stockpiles inUganda. There were, however, reports of theperception among local population that UNDPsupported forceful disarmament. The SALWprogramme was put on hold in order to takemeasures to allay such misconceptions. WhileSALW programmes have since resumed, there isalso need for simultaneous implementation ofawareness programmes, found to be lacking in UNDP- supported interventions. Interviews withgovernment officials and those working in thearea of human security indicate that there was nosystemic data on the number of stockpiles or the time- frame for destroying them. Considering theimportance of disarmament and its causalrelation to insecurity in the region, UNDPshould be more strategic in its engagement in thisarea. UNDP should plan to engage in SALWreduction in a systematic and comprehensive way.

UNDP contribution to results in the area ofdisarmament and demobilization could havebeen more effective if it focused on fewer areas.90

Though UNDP supported activities at bothdistrict and national levels, the scope and scale ofthe interventions were not sufficient to fostersignificant improvements in human security. Inmany ways, the specified outcomes were overly

89. The Centre was established in the Office of the Prime Minister in July 2005, with the overall responsibility of addressing the humanitarian and socio- economic problems caused by landmines and explosive remnants of war. UNDPand the Office of the Prime Minister jointly contracted the Danish Demining Group to carry out demining activities innorthern Uganda.

90. There were scattered activities, such as training of police constables for protecting civilian populations in affected districts, which were found to be less effective. To address insecurity caused by Boo Kec, which existed in the areas ofreturn, and to remove the Ugandan Peoples Defence Force from the civilian population, UNDP trained police consta-bles to provide the required protection. These constables were then posted to sub- counties. The evaluation team visitedKitgum and Gulu to find that not only were the police ineffective, but they were also a source of insecurity.



ambitious for the scale of activities, and theduration of interventions was not sufficient tomake a meaningful contribution to results. Thesustainability of the interventions is also an issue.There was no evidence that activities pursuedwith the Amnesty Commission would remainsustainable beyond the project period. As in the case of many other interventions, there is noexit plan to ensure future government ownershipor follow- up.

4.3.4 FURTHERING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS OPPORTUNITIES FORINTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

Sustainable recovery is one of the critical issues innorthern Uganda. Livelihood interventions arecritical for 90 percent of the people affected byconflict and living in absolute poverty, withlimited livelihood options and access to credit.UNDP supported livelihood projects forinternally displaced persons as part of its earlyrecovery and human security interventions. Thiswas intended to strengthen income generationactivities, diversify sustainable livelihoods andminimize food insecurity. Considering theimportance of credit and support to enterprisedevelopment in northern Uganda, UNDPinterventions can be viewed as relevant, althoughto varying degrees of effectiveness. Thecombined outcome of livelihood interventionswas not evident.

TRP livelihood interventions were implementedby privatesector organizations, which reportedto the ALD of the Office of the Prime Minister.UNDP support involved training for enterprisedevelopment and providing basic equipment forstarting a business.91 The evaluation team metwith privatesector organizations and a fewenterprise groups in the Kitgum and Guludistricts. While TRP has been important interms of livelihood skills- building, there was

limited evidence based upon which to assesstangible results in ensuring sustainable liveli-hoods. It was also not clear if all livelihoodenterprises chosen had market value in terms ofmonetary returns.92 Another issue was the shortduration of the livelihood interventions. Aninitial term of six months, which was laterextended to a year, made it difficult to ensureskills were retained and effectively used forincome generation.

Livelihood interventions were also included inthe ongoing country programme under the earlyrecovery component and in the Sex- BasedGender Violence programme. Although thescope of such interventions was small, trainingwas provided in alternate livelihood activities.Similar to other livelihood programmes,interventions such as basket making and tailoringdid not have market value. Some of the interven-tions intended to provide livelihood support tointernally displaced persons had been signifi-cantly delayed.93

While the Quick Impact Project, one of thelivelihood interventions, cannot be evaluated forresults, lessons from its design and implementa-tion phases are important for UNDP. The evalua-tion found that the programme duration of theproject does not allow for adequate engagementwith the targeted population. For any meaningfullivelihood support, the programme should be fora reasonable length of time, and more time needsto be spent in orienting the beneficiaries tosustainable livelihood options. There have alsobeen perceptions that the poorest of the poorareas were not selected for this intervention, andthe choices of livelihood tools proposed to bedistributed were not based on the needs thatemerged in consultation with the community.One of the criticisms of the project expressed by

91. In the privatesector organizations visited by the evaluation team, activities for which training was provided include cas-sava processing, baking, mushroom growing, tree nursery operation and beekeeping.

92. The groups with a beekeeping enterprise had only been able to obtain marginal returns on the honey harvested.93. For example, the Quick Impact Project was delayed by over a year. Implementation had started at the end of the first

quarter of the 2009.



government and other stakeholders, includingthe implementing partner, was the extensiveUNDP delay in implementation. The delayrendered the support meaningless, as most of thebeneficiaries lost an agricultural season. UNDPalso did not use the intervention to develop thecapacities of local NGOs and establishedregional privatesector organizations. Futureprogrammes should ensure these shortcomingsare not repeated.

UNDP livelihood interventions did not provide a model for up- scaling by government or other agencies and were not linked to similarinterventions undertaken under the povertyreduction programme. Gender- related issues inresettlement and livelihood creation were notgiven adequate attention, although women wereincluded as beneficiaries of livelihood interven-tions. The return of internally displaced personsfrom camps to their original habitation alsoraised issues related to land ownership. As discussed in Section 4.2 on livelihoodsupport, such issues were not addressed byUNDP interventions.

Although UNDP played an important role insetting up Enterprise Uganda and supporting privatesector microfinance enterprises, theseinstitutions were not used to develop a coherentmodel of livelihood support in post- conflictinterventions. More recent livelihood interven-tions, including the Quick Impact Project, areimplemented through international NGOs, inmany ways losing the opportunity to strengthen privatesector models in post- conflict recovery.What was lacking was a strategic approach tolivelihood development, with linkages to thepoverty reduction interventions of the countryprogramme. The various livelihood interventionswere compartmentalized and activity- driven.

Interviews with beneficiaries indicated that therewere successes in sustaining activities andgenerating income through them. There was,however, a lack of systematic monitoring systems,which would not only document the improve-ment in the condition of the targeted beneficiar-ies, but also enable drawing lessons. The cost- efficiency of livelihood interventions was notoptimal, even more so in recent interventionsthat did not use local expertise and resources.

4.3.5 ENHANCING EARLY RECOVERY COORDINATION

The large numbers of internally displacedpersons in northern Uganda necessitatedhumanitarian coordination of relief and recoveryactivities.94 Uganda was identified as one of thepilot countries for the humanitarian clusterapproach, which mandated the cluster approachin various sectors (i.e., shelter, health, nutrition,and water, sanitation and hygene), includingthree cross- cutting areas (i.e., early recovery,protection, and camp coordination and manage-ment), and several sub- clusters to facilitatecoordination and streamlining of humanitarianresponse. Operationalized in 2005, the clusterapproach intended to bridge capacity gaps in thecoordination of recovery interventions byinternational agencies, NGOs and the govern-ment. UNDP is the designated lead agency forthe early recovery cluster. The evaluationexamined UNDP contribution in furtheringearly recovery coordination.

UNDP engagement with the government andother stakeholders in early recovery clustercoordination had mixed results. While severalinstitutional structures were established asmandated by the Ugandan internally displacedperson policy, their interface with the earlyrecovery cluster did not succeed in enhancingsynergies between various agencies. The earlyrecovery cluster also faced more challenges than

94. Considering the complexity of post- conflict issues, the UN saw the need for a separate humanitarian coordinator position. However, the Government of Uganda objected to having such a position, saying it suggested an accentuatedhumanitarian situation. The UN had to revert to the Resident Coordinator taking on the responsibility of humanitariancoordination. For a short duration of the Resident Coordinator position being vacant, humanitarian coordination wassupported by UNICEF.



others.95 Humanitarian stakeholders, includingUN agencies, did not share a commonunderstanding of the purpose of this cluster, andUNDP did not provide conceptual or operationalclarity.96 In discussion with the government,UNDP defined the scope of the early recoverycluster to comprise governance, infrastructureand livelihoods. The rationale was to identifygaps in other clusters where UNDP couldprovide support under the early recovery cluster.There were arguments in favour and againstincluding a particular area as a sub- component inthe early recovery cluster, specifically with regardto livelihoods and infrastructure. Officials anddevelopment agencies that met with the evalua-tion team were not clear regarding what the sub- clusters of livelihoods and infrastructure entailed vis- à- vis similar activities in other clusters; therewas also limited clarity pertaining to the activitiesof the governance sub- cluster. Internationalagencies working on livelihood issues alsoexpressed uneasiness about the overlap of liveli-hood coordination in the early recovery cluster.

Notwithstanding the challenges of the earlyrecovery cluster, UNDP support to the Office ofthe Prime Minister in coordinating post- conflictresponse at the district level through DDMCsproved to be a valuable asset for a closer relation-ship with local authorities, as well as for informa-tion dissemination.97 Including areas such asgovernance and livelihoods as cross- cutting issueswas the right approach to addressing humanitarianissues. However, UNDP did not effectively useits partnership with the government at the centreand district levels to take further activities in thearea governance, which is a most important areaof early recovery. Governance issues— as a critical

link in recovery, transition and sustainabledevelopment— were not established during theoperationalization of the early recovery cluster.The perception of agencies participating in earlyrecovery activities was that there was little valuefor the time they invested, and that sub- clusteractivities in the areas of livelihoods andinfrastructure were often defined by agenciesother than UNDP.

Unlike in other clusters, there were difficulties inmobilizing funds for early recovery activities. For2008–2009, Uganda was able to raise only 28percent of the required funds through FlashAppeals organized by the United Nations Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.The limitations in effectively enhancing coordi-nation of early recovery activities were atdifferent levels and were interrelated. Some ofthe issues that came up during the evaluationincluded lack of conceptual clarity, poor partici-pation of humanitarian stakeholders and organi-zational constraints.

Providing conceptual clarity

One of the major limitations of UNDP was itsinability to provide clarity of what early recoveryentails and define it to suit Uganda’s humanitar-ian and social requirements. Unlike clusters thataddress basic humanitarian needs, the earlyrecovery cluster is intended to enable a smoothtransition to recovery and development. Whatwas needed in the context of Uganda was to allay the arguments that the early recovery cluster duplicated other clusters’ activities, and toclearly demonstrate the value that this cluster canbring in terms of addressing the critical recoveryand transition issues of livelihoods, governanceand infrastructure.

95. Stakeholder discussions suggested that efforts in food security and water, sanitation and hygene were useful in identifyingcritical gaps in the sector and in involving district administrations in cluster coordination to a certain extent. Similarly,efforts in the protection cluster were found to be significant in addressing issues of internally displaced persons living in camps. While sector- specific clusters achieved different levels of success in responding to on- the- ground needs andidentifying sectoral gaps, there was no holistic approach to response in each sector.

96. Agencies such as UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationsand others were wary of UNDP exceeding itself in the scope of early recovery activities.

97. On the positive side, one of the unintended benefits of locallevel coordination meetings was that some of the privatecompanies supported by the UNDP poverty practice became known to local actors participating in the coordinationmeetings and were eventually contracted by some international NGOs (e.g., CARE) and the local government to under-take some specific activities given their proven track record.



It was not evident that the support received fromthe UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery was sufficient to facilitate betterunderstanding. While UNDP correctly identi-fied governance as one of the key areas of earlyrecovery, the agency stopped short of clarifying tothe humanitarian community that althoughUganda was not an appropriate case for the earlyrecovery cluster, the issues pursued under thecluster were relevant to the country’s recoveryand transition.

Government participation

Despite institutional systems at the nationallevel— such as the Inter- Ministerial PolicyCommittee, the Sub- Committee for HumanRights Protection and Promotion, the Inter- Agency Technical Committee and the DisasterManagement Committee— UNDP could notfacilitate government participation in earlyrecovery cluster coordination. This had manyimplications for the effectiveness and ownershipof the cluster, both at the district and nationallevels, and for accountability of cluster activities.One of the reasons for this was that the govern-ment was severely constrained by the lack ofpersonnel and financial resources. While UNDPsupported staff positions at the district andnational levels, this was not sufficient for thegovernment to actively engage in cluster coordi-nation. With exceptions, cluster coordinationbecame a mechanism for donor agencies, ratherthan that owned and led by the government.Linkages between cluster mechanisms at districtand national levels were found to be ineffective.Cluster management was widely perceived as top- down, not taking local realities into consid-eration and driven by the priorities set by Kampala- based agencies.

District administration staff was not fullyengaged in early recovery coordination activities.Issues were similar to the ones at the nationallevel; there were not enough personnel at thedistrict to participate in various cluster groupmeetings. District Disaster ManagementCommittees, which could have represented thedistrict administration, lacked capacities to

engage in discussions and inform districtadministration. The widely shared perceptionwas that clusters represented a duplication of theadministration structures, which in addition tothe lack of conceptual clarity made early recoverycluster implementation weak. While it wasimportant that the early recovery cluster was ledby district governments, UNDP could not ensurethis. It failed to effectively articulate the purposeand the possible outcome of effective clustercoordination for sustainable recovery and inproviding adequate facilitation. Lack of leader-ship was perceived by international agencies andNGOs as one of the reasons for poor coordina-tion of early recovery cluster,

Civil society participation

Local CSO and NGO participation was limited.CSO and NGO networks that met with theevaluation team were of the view that adequateemphasis was not placed on local stakeholderparticipation, and that the scope of their contri-bution was limited. Many NGOs felt marginal-ized in cluster meetings. A repeatedly raised issuewas that the NGO share of humanitarianfunding has dropped. However, it was notevident if there was any stipulation that a certainpercentage of early recovery— and other humani-tarian cluster— funds should be implemented incoordination with local NGOs. The NGOs werealso of the view that their partnerships withUNDP have been on the decline, and some ofthe NGOs with good community bases did notengage in recovery and development activities.

Coordination among donor agencies andhumanitarian stakeholders

Inter- agency coordination, particularly amongUN agencies, was not adequately geared toensure the effectiveness of the cluster approach.Donor agencies were of the view that there wasno synergy among UN agencies. They wereperceived as competing with each other, whichwas seen as counter- productive for a harmonizedresponse. While it is essential to ensure higherlead agency accountability in effective clustercoordination, it is also important that there isconformity to the principles of joint work for



effective humanitarian coordination. Some of theissues related to humanitarian coordination arenot discussed here, as they are outside the scopeof this evaluation.

Discussions in the districts visited by the evalua-tion team clearly highlight that most agenciesvalued the advantages of the cluster approach.There was, however, a perception that theapproach was largely centred on, and providedmore visibility to, UN agencies compared toothers. One of the reasons for such a perceptionwas that UN agencies were designated as clusterheads, in accordance with the IASC global leadsagreement. UNDP did not make sufficientefforts in the early recovery cluster to ensure theactive participation of donor agencies and otherstakeholders, failing to engage major donors suchas The World Bank. Limited efforts were madeto involve other agencies as co- leads. It was alsoevident that there was some ambivalence aboutthe early recovery cluster, and very little was doneby UNDP to clarify the cluster’s scope and role.

Organizational dimensions

Successful implementation of the early recoverycluster would have required far greater resourcesand technical support than were available toUNDP Uganda, including senior staff experi-enced in early recovery. It is also notable thatthere was no capacity assessment of existingUNDP resources to face the challenge ofassuming the early recovery cluster lead. As anevolving concept, early recovery lacked adequateguidance and the programme frameworkrequired for operationalization.

The UNDP financial and programmeimplementation procedures were found to be lessconducive to early recovery than to other activi-ties. This was further aggravated by the weakcapacities of the country office, where extensivedelays became a management practice. AlthoughUNDP opened offices in affected districts, theoperational presence was minimal, and the capaci-ties at the Kampala office were not adequate tocompensate for the weak field presence.

Protracted programme implementation andinability of UNDP Uganda to effectively manageeven small- scale programmes undermined theUNDP position in recovery efforts and theagency’s ability to attract funds for conflictprevention and recovery.

4.3.6 ADDRESSING GENDER DIMENSIONSIN POST- CONFLICT RECOVERY

Gender- based violence is a pervasive social issuein northern Uganda. While the violence againstwomen and girls is most common, there werealso areas where instances of violence againstmen were reported to have been perpetrated bywomen. UNDP had specific interventions toaddress sexual and gender- based violence in the conflict- affected districts of Kitgum, Gulu, Paderand Lira. The programme was implemented incoordination with the Ministry of Gender.UNDP supported the district positions of sexualand gender- based violence project coordinators,who worked in tandem with the gender focalpoint of the district administration.

The UNDP intervention is relevant consideringthe seriousness of the issue of gender- based violencein northern Uganda. While it is too early toassess results, the intervention has the potentialfor further scaling up by the government. Whilethere are reports that incidence of violence againstwomen has come down in some of the districtswhere the programme is being implemented,there is limited evidence to suggest that this wasa consequence of UNDP interventions.

Strengthening support to the government in thisarea is critical to reducing the incidence of violenceand informing policy and transitional justicemechanisms. Several issues, which emergedduring the evaluation field visits and discussionswith government and other stakeholders, haveimplications for the sustainability and scaling upof UNDP interventions. First, the scope ofinterventions has been extensive and unrealisticin view of the meagre resources allocated.Interventions should be more focused onadvocacy and policy- related activities. Second,UNDP should support district administrations in



developing mechanisms to document andmonitor gender- based violence. District adminis-trations were aware of the weak monitoringsystems, and some of the district administrationgender focal points were keen to improve suchsystems. UNDP can facilitate this process. Third,UNDP should develop partnerships with otheragencies to further government capacities toaddress gender- related issues.

While there are specific interventions that targetwomen and include them as beneficiaries, theconflict prevention and recovery programme in post- conflict districts of northern Uganda is notinformed by gender analysis. UNDP should payspecific attention to addressing the genderdimension of post- conflict recovery andreconstruction in the next country programme.(See Chapter 5 for a further discussion.)

4.3.7 CONTRIBUTION TO RESULTS IN CONFLICT PREVENTION AND RECOVERY

Results of conflict prevention and recoveryinterventions could have been enhanced with

better programme strategy and linkages withother UNDP programme areas. UNDP Ugandacapacities to implement conflict prevention andrecovery programmes had several limitations.UNDP was not adequately responsive in thecontext of the fast- changing situation innorthern Uganda. Early recovery efforts were notat desirable levels, and UNDP was not effectivein its early recovery cluster coordinating role.UNDP was similarly ineffective in developingpartnerships with other agencies working innorthern Uganda.

The conflict prevention and recovery programmedid not make sufficient efforts to strengthen thecapacities of national NGOs and CSOs in thearea of protection, recovery and advocacy. Thenext UNDAF and country programme providean opportunity to strategize such interventions,as well as to strengthen UNDP capacities tobetter respond to emerging needs. While UNDPis well positioned with corporate expertise in theareas of post- conflict recovery, reconstruction andpolicy support, there is a need to systematicallyaccess this expertise.


C H A P T E R 5 . C R O S S - C U T T I N G I S S U E S 5 5

The previous and ongoing UNDP countryprogrammes had highlighted gender,HIV/AIDS and environment as the cross- cutting issues contributing to national develop-ment results. An additional cross- cutting themeof a rights- based approach to development wasincluded in the current country programme.Though country programmes incorporated mostof the corporate cross- cutting issues, specificemphasis on capacity development and South- South cooperation is also required. This chapterexamines how UNDP integrated cross- cuttingthemes into its programme framework andimplementation. Since environment and South- South cooperation did not receive muchattention in programme planning, they areomitted from discussion.

The cross- cutting issues that were emphasized inthe two country programmes are relevant withinthe context of Uganda and the framework ofnational development strategies. TheGovernment of Uganda has policies to supportintegrating gender equality and HIV/AIDS intodevelopment planning and budgeting and hasshown exceptional leadership in addressing theseconcerns within the PEAP framework. Therewere additional efforts to inform policy ongender dimensions of poverty reduction,economic growth and the MDGs.

As discussed in Chapter 2, challenges remain inreducing gender disparities and achieving someof the MDGs. The rights- based approach isrelatively new in Uganda, and there are currentlyno explicit national guidelines to ensure itssystematic use. Still, there is a positive national-

level government orientation to integrate the rights- based approach into planning.

5.1 ENHANCING GENDER EQUITY

The Government of Uganda has made adetermined effort to further gender equality indevelopment planning and policy. Promotinggender equality has been emphasized in thePEAP and northern Uganda developmentpolicies.98 Measures have been taken to includegender as a cross- cutting issue in various sector- wide approach plans and to implement genderbudgeting. Such measures went as far as sensitiz-ing parliamentarians on addressing gender issuesin legislation and parliamentary democracy, andwere buttressed by the formation of associationssuch as the Uganda Women ParliamentaryAssociation and Children’s House. Significantprogress has been made in electoral participationof women, with elective positions reserved forwomen in the Parliament and local councils.

Despite such efforts, however, women are stilldisadvantaged due to gender disparities inliteracy levels, access to health care, incidence ofHIV/AIDS, employment rates and access tofinancial services. There are also disparities inaccess to justice, which are quite significant giventhe high rate of violence against women.99 Whilebills have been introduced to address domesticviolence and offences against women, gender biasis still strongly prevalent in legal procedures.

As discussed in the section on policy support andenhancing MDGs in the previous chapter, thereare constraints in achieving the MDG targets of

Chapter 5

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

98. The PRDP and the Karamoja Region Development Program.99. Government of Uganda, ‘Gender Inequality in Uganda: The Status, Causes and Effects’, Discussion Paper 1, Ministry

of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, 2006.


C H A P T E R 5 . C R O S S - C U T T I N G I S S U E S5 6

maternal health and child mortality, which havesignificant gender dimensions and need aconcerted government effort. It is important tonote that gender issues in developing countrieshave a degree of bearing on almost all the MDGs.

The common country assessments carried outprior to designing the UNDAF and the Ugandacountry programme acknowledged the complex-ity of gender issues and empowerment of womenin both public and private arenas. Countryprogramme documents consistently includedgender concerns in the programme framework.As discussed in Chapter 4, women were includedas beneficiaries and target groups in variousUNDP interventions in the three mainprogramme areas. In addition, there were a fewinterventions that addressed women- specificissues, such as gender- based violence. UNDPsupported the Ministry of Gender, Labour andSocial Development and several national and district- level initiatives to further genderequality. The ministry reviewed the nationalgender policy and re- evaluated the PEAP with afocus on gender concerns and related outcomes.

There were, however, limitations on planningand implementing gender as a cross- cuttingissue. While different projects aimed to ensurethat women comprised a minimum of 30 percentof their beneficiaries, the programme lacked asystematic framework for carrying out genderanalysis in order to guide programme design andimplementation or for monitoring progress ingender relations. For example, the conflictprevention and recovery programme frameworkdoes not outline how gender issues will beaddressed in the programme as a cross- cuttingissue. Similarly, in the PDM interventions or inprivate sector development it was not evidenthow gender issues were addressed beyondincluding women as beneficiaries. In particular,different programme areas had no indicators for

verifying integration of gender dimensions, otherthan the notion of ensuring that women werebeneficiaries. Contributions to results thatenhance gender equality require an understand-ing of gender differences and their causes, inorder to ensure that planned interventions areappropriately responsive, rather than merelyidentify ‘women’ in general as a target or vulner-able group for specific attention. This practicewas found to be lacking.

UNDP programmes lacked structured monitor-ing systems,100 and programme indicators andreporting systems were insufficient to systemati-cally collect gender- disaggregated data. Combinedwith the lack of a gender mainstreaming strategywith specified outcomes for UNDP Uganda,101

evaluating results associated with mainstreaminggender was difficult.

Development agencies working in northernUganda pointed out that beneficiary selectioncould have paid more attention to the mostvulnerable groups. Gender inequality is exacer-bated amid other vulnerabilities. Yet discussionswith UNDP Uganda staff and implementingpartners did not reveal a systematic approach togender issues in participatory planning pilots, privatesector support, or the livelihoodinterventions of the poverty reduction and theconflict prevention and recovery programmes.Discussions with programme beneficiaries alsoindicated that the livelihood options supporteddid not have market value. To ensure equitableand sustainable livelihoods and local economicdevelopment, UNDP must address genderdimensions of its target populations in terms ofemployment opportunities and needs.

National human development reports haveanalysed the gender dimensions of development.It is, however, not evident how UNDP used thisanalysis to guide programme formulation. The

100. See Chapter 6 for further discussion. 101. The project and outcome evaluations made similar observations. Although the country programme action plan called

for attention to cross- cutting issues, there was limited guidance on how to mainstream work plans or indicators for assessment.



government gender focal point in one of thedistricts visited by the evaluation teamemphasized the need for baseline and periodicmonitoring of sexual and gender- based violence,and that the small grant provided for theprogramme could not support such activities.

Though gender dimensions in post- conflictreconstruction are very critical, it was not evidentthat UNDP adequately contributed to this area.It was not evident how gender was addressed inearly recovery activities, including the earlyrecovery cluster, and the degree of leadershipUNDP provided to ensure this. In the humani-tarian cluster approach, the United NationsPopulation Fund has the lead role in incorporat-ing gender issues, and the human rights clusterled by the United Nations Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights has the task ofaddressing gender- related rights concerns. UNDPcontributions to these processes were not evident,particularly in disseminating lessons drawn fromvarious stakeholders at the district level to informrecovery and reconstruction decision- making atthe national level. There was also no sufficientevidence of joint work with other UN agencies inaddressing gender- related issues.

There is limited thinking on strategic support forenhancing policies and practices towards genderequality. MDG reporting should be furtherstrengthened to provide gender- disaggregatedanalysis. While the MDG report had touched onthe gender differences between the first and thirdgoal, gender- disaggregated data and discussionwere weak for other MDGs.

In the forthcoming programme, UNDP shouldtake sufficient measures to ensure that genderanalysis informs programme design andimplementation. The country programme needsto clearly spell out the gender mainstreamingparameters. UNDP should also revisit existing

programme plans in order to ensure gender issuesreceive due attention. Lessons from ongoinginterventions are valuable for scaling up and forinforming government policy on enhancing moreequitable participation. Interventions such asthose combating sexual and gender- basedviolence have lot of potential for enhancinggovernment capacities to monitor violenceagainst women. UNDP should take measures inorder to strengthen its programme interventionsin terms of scale, and should link micro- interventions to macro processes. In addressinggender equity as a cross- cutting issue, thereshould also be more engagement with CSOs andtraditional leadership in order to carry outadvocacy activities that will further genderequality and prevent gender- based violence.

5.2 ENHANCING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Strengthening government capacities has been akey objective of both country programmes underreview and has been outlined in all programmeoutcomes. UNDP Uganda largely follows anational implementation modality, extendingsupport through government agencies. As such,UNDP interventions are identical to a similar setof interventions supported by various agencies.This necessitates a consistent framework to plan and monitor the capacity developmentcomponents of interventions. While UNDPoutcomes provide a broad framework, they areoverambitious and hard to substantiate given thesmall scale of inputs.

The evaluation examined how the UNDPprogramme framework assesses capacities andplans capacity development elements in differentinterventions.102 Some parameters used in theevaluation include support provided to buildingand strengthening institutions, furthering policy,strengthening leadership and coordination, and

102. The Capacity Development Practice Note (May 2008) defines the difference as follows: “Capacity development is commonly used to refer to the process of both creating and building capacities, as well as the (subsequent) use, manage-ment and retention of capacities. It is seen as endogenously driven and recognizes existing national capacity assets as itsstarting point.” See also UNDP, ‘Supporting Capacity Development: The UNDP Approach’, Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy, Capacity Development Group, New York, June 2008.



strengthening government mechanisms to accessdevelopment resources and accountabilitystructures. While the evaluation team recognizesthat capacity development is more complex tomonitor for effectiveness than other areas ofdevelopment support, it was evident that UNDPdid not have clear parameters for capacitydevelopment outcomes that could have beenconsistently applied to all interventions of thecountry office.

UNDP supported capacity developmentinterventions at the national, district and sub- district levels, with mixed results. UNDP supportto the disaster management unit in the Office ofthe Prime Minister and to the Uganda MineAction Centre was perceived as critical tostrengthening the government’s capacity torespond to post- conflict reconstruction andhuman security needs. Government officials werealso appreciative of the rights- based approachproject, as the concept was new to Uganda andthe government was keen to integrate it intodevelopment planning.

Sustainability has been an issue in UNDP- supported interventions. For example, whileUNDP supported the National PlanningAuthority, its sustainability depends on itslocation within the Ministry of Finance,Planning and Economic Development, withfunctions integrated into the ministry’s overallmandate. Similarly, while MDG monitoringreports were important to enabling governmentmonitoring of progress, additional efforts are neededto align with government monitoring systems.

Policy engagement in all practice areas hadlimitations. In addition to poor programmedesign, UNDP Uganda did not have adequatecapacity in terms of staff expertise to engage inpolicy discourse. To engage in the areas of policyand governance, both of which are critical toachieving the MDGs, UNDP needs to develop aprogramme strategy that emphasizes coordina-tion with other agencies in key areas of interven-

tion. Particular attention also needs to be paid toenhancing the capacity of the country office toengage in policy deliberations.

Despite being important, the interventions ofUNDP were more output- oriented and did notalways aim at furthering national capacities. Forexample, in the previous country programme,UNDP had extended support to orientation andtraining of Parliament staff and parliamentarians.Such interventions did not aim at strengtheningnational institutions, such as the UgandaManagement Centre, to provide training on aregular basis to bureaucracy and legislature.There were interventions that were essentiallypilot initiatives, for example, ParticipatoryDevelopment Management at the local level.While this has increased the capacities of eightmunicipalities in participatory planning, this wasnot institutionalized or informed policy reform in local governance. Even at the micro- level, the capacities created are less sustainable in theabsence of resources available for the localgovernment. For more sustainable capacities, micro- interventions should inform policy andgovernment practices. This was found to belacking in many interventions.

The factors constraining contribution to capacitydevelopment include dispersed nature of UNDPsupport, in which interventions are small- scale,not strategic or compartmentalized, and outputsare hard to sustain over longer periods. Severalinterventions— for example, support to LCCs— were one- time ad hoc initiatives that had littlerelevance to capacity development. To achievemeaningful capacity development results, UNDPshould reduce the number of interventions andaim to fill critical gaps in strategic areas, givingimportance to policy support in programming.

The approach followed by UNDP for nationalimplementation was not effective, according to ajoint evaluation of the MFPED and UNDP.103

The ministry established an internal unit forimplementing the UNDP programme. UNDP

103. Moyo 2008.



graduated from the National Execution (NEX)Support Unit during 1990–1997 to the ALDduring 1998–2008. The NEX Support Unit wasenvisaged to strengthen government capacities inthe execution of externally funded technicalassistance projects, while it supported theimplementation of UNDP interventions. Thesubsequently established ALD had the similarscope of implementing UNDP programmes in amore centralized way. At the time of itsformation, the ALD was considered relevant toaugmenting government staff capacity, whichwas reduced because of Structural AdjustmentProgramme measures. Both country programmesunder review were implemented through theALD. While the department was closed inJanuary 2008, the experience offers importantlessons for defining the approach of nationalimplementation modality for the forthcomingUNDP programme. At the time of the ADR, theapproach followed in the national implementa-tion modality of the forthcoming programme wasnot evident, although UNDP intends to followlargely the national implementation modality.

While the ALD approach augmented govern-ment staff, there is limited evidence to suggestthat it enhanced government capacities tomanage externally funded programmes. It wasnot evident how a separate department dedicatedto the implementation of the UNDP programmeenhanced national capacities, since the ALD wasessentially augmenting staff capacities. UNDPUganda considers funding government staffpositions to equal capacity development. Inaddition to staff, various ALD consultingpositions were funded by UNDP to providetechnical assistance.104 Support to the ALD wasnot aimed at increasing government capacity tocoordinate external aid independent of UNDPprogramme implementation. An external evalua-tion carried out at the conclusion of ALDsupport pointed to the lack of clarity on the partof UNDP in extending such support, and to the

limitations in enhancing ALD capacities.105 Thestated goal of enhancing government capacitiesfor better aid coordination was not achievedthrough the ALD mechanism.

Uganda was a pilot country for the post- conflicthumanitarian cluster approach, and UNDP wasthe lead agency for the early recovery cluster.Despite the complexity of the political situation,cluster coordination provided an opportunity forenabling longer- term sustainable recovery at thedistrict and national levels. However, UNDP didnot use this opportunity to enhance the country’scapacity for sustainable recovery. Although earlyrecovery has certain conceptual and practicallimitations, the opportunity to provide theleadership required in this critical area ofhumanitarian approach was lost. UNDP couldnot adequately define or prioritize early recoveryactivities to best address long- term issues, such asstrengthening governance at the district level orproviding support to address potential causes ofconflict. An opportunity was lost not only inclarifying to the government the need for a morestructured approach to early recovery (in order toeffectively transition to reconstruction anddevelopment), but also in advocating theimportance of early recovery among donors inorder to mobilize funds.

The role of UNDP in enhancing governmentcoordination was minimal. In many areas(including governance, privatesector support,environment, northern Uganda policy andtechnical support), UNDP is not a key player indonor coordination. There were several sectorworking groups and sector- wide approach plansin Uganda. While UNDP participated in theworking groups and coordination mechanisms, itwas not evident that UNDP played an active rolein these forums.

With a few exceptions— where NGOs acted asimplementing partners— UNDP efforts todevelop capacities of CSOs have been weak.

104. During the evaluation period, UNDP supported 41 ALD staff and consultant positions.105. Moyo 2008.



Many NGOs and CSOs that met with theevaluation team said that UNDP engagementhad not been at desirable levels. Active participa-tion of local NGOs and CSOs was also perceivedto be limited in early recovery cluster.

UNDP does not have a strategy to strengthencivil society capacities. Representatives of NGOnetworks also pointed out that results in develop-ment and post- conflict recovery can be furtherenhanced by using existing local capacities. Incontrast, UNDP was perceived to opt forinternational NGOs that did not have adequatelocal expertise compared to national alternatives.The next programme cycle provides an opportu-nity to systematically integrate civil society capacitydevelopment into the programme framework,using local capacities wherever available.

5.3 MINIMIZING THE RISK OF HIV/AIDS

During the past decade, the Government ofUganda has made significant efforts to combatHIV/AIDS. Uganda receives support from theGlobal Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis andMalaria. Two rounds of grants have beenimplemented, and the third is ongoing. Ugandahas already met its MDG target. However,national statistics show that HIV/AIDSprevalence has been on the increase in the pastthree years, and Uganda risks losing gains consol-idated so far, if immediate measures are not takento address the factors that contribute to this increase.

Either as a cross- cutting issue or as one of theMDGs, the mainstreaming of HIV/AIDSconcerns did not get the attention it deserved inthe country programmes under review. UNDPcompleted two specific interventions: training ofmunicipal councillors to address HIV/AIDS andsupporting an assessment of the macroeconomicimpact of the disease. The training was a one- time programme, and it was not possible toevaluate its results. The study, determined by thegovernment to be a useful document, remains tobe adequately pursued so that it informs thenational development planning. Other than these

interventions, the mainstreaming of HIV/AIDSinto different UNDP programme activities wasnot evident. Similar to the areas of gender andcapacity development, UNDP did not have acoherent HIV/AIDS mainstreaming strategy.

Stakeholders interviewed, particularly thoseamong donors and civil society, expressedconcerns about integrating HIV/AIDS in thenational development strategy and stressed theimportance of a multisectoral approach in orderto minimize risks. The forthcoming programmeshould pay specific attention to mainstreamingHIV/AIDS in all relevant programme interven-tions, as outlined in the corporate 2008–2011Strategic Plan. UNDP should also developpartnerships within and outside the UN systemto further HIV/AIDS advocacy.

5.4 RIGHTS- BASED APPROACH

The rights- based approach is a relatively a newconcept in Uganda and, in contrast to gender andHIV/AIDS concerns, is not yet articulated ingovernment planning and policy documents. TheHuman Rights Commission introduced the conceptin the areas addressed under UNDP support and,according to government officials, documentedsome success. The Right to Health programmeestablished desks at schools and in district clubsin order to raise rights awareness, but it is tooearly to assess the results of such interventions.

Rights- based approach elements were alsopresent in the PDM that was implemented ineight Ugandan districts. Despite the presence ofdispersed activities, a systematic approach waslacking, and the rights- based methodology wasnot articulated in the UNDP programme strate-gies. It was also found that staff had limitedunderstanding of how to integrate the rights- based approach into programmes or projects.

UNDP should take sufficient measures to notonly further the rights- based approach in govern-ment planning processes, but also to enhance itscountry office’s capacities and mainstream theapproach in its own interventions.


C H A P T E R 6 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P 6 1

UNDP has had a long presence in Uganda. Formost of this time, national development prioritiesguided programme interventions. In the previousand ongoing country programmes, UNDPsupported development needs identified in thePEAP and in post- conflict recovery andreconstruction efforts of the government. Severalfactors influenced UNDP positioning inresponding to the development priorities.Uganda has a large donor presence, and UNDPplays a relatively small role in terms of thefinancial and technical resources contributedtowards achieving development results. UNDPalso has the responsibility to ensure it meetsspecific organizational mandates, using its owncore funds to address issues critical to furtheringhuman development; issues that the governmentor donors may prioritize differently. This chapteranalyses how UNDP positioned itself vis- à- visresponding to Uganda’s development challenges.

6.1. HOW UNDP POSITIONED ITSELF

As to responsiveness and alignment with nationaldevelopment priorities, UNDP has beenregarded as a trusted and reliable partner, praisedfor its responsiveness, flexibility, neutrality andlack of a political agenda. As discussed inChapter 4, there were areas of UNDP supportthat were significant to strengthening nationalinstitutions and informing policy (e.g., support tothe Office of the Prime Minister in disastermanagement and support to developinginternally displaced person and National DisasterManagement policies). In areas such as supportto the Parliament and anti- corruption institu-tions, UNDP has been a pioneer supporter ofthese interventions, which later received supportfrom other donors. While such interventionsprovided UNDP the opportunity to influencedevelopment planning, it was not evident thatUNDP positioned itself to enable this.

Most interventions in the area of governance andpoverty reduction were responsive to governmentrequests. However, the high responsiveness toindividual government requests did not translateinto a cohesive portfolio of interventions, as therewere no direct linkages to make the interventionsmutually supportive. While some yielded verypositive outputs (e.g., support to the Parliament,the IGG, Uganda Human Rights Commissionand Enterprise Uganda), results cannot beaggregated to consider that each area of practiceis meeting stated outcomes. UNDP responsive-ness was not strategic, because support wasprovided to a wide range of unrelated interven-tions with resources that were spread too thinlyto make sustainable contributions to develop-ment results. While the relatively modest UNDPfunding support to implementing partners hasbeen occasionally used as seed money, there waslimited evidence to suggest that it was regularlycomplemented by additional funds mobilizationor efforts to sustain outcomes. UNDP shouldmake an effort in the forthcoming programme todevelop more focused support by reducing thenumber of small and dispersed interventions;there is a need to balance the depth and breadthof supported interventions.

UNDP Uganda’s strategic positioning must beseen in light of its capacity to mobilize aprogramme portfolio to accomplish the outcomesoutlined in the country programme, and in lightof its support to the government in key develop-ment areas. During the past nine years, therehave been limitations in mobilizing funds on asustained basis. UNDP mobilized $10 millionannually. Despite its long presence andfavourable relations with the government, donoragencies did not channel adequate resourcesthrough UNDP. One reason for this is theprevalence of budget support in Uganda, which

Chapter 6

STRATEGIC POSITIONING OF UNDP


C H A P T E R 6 . S T R A T E G I C P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N D P6 2

reduced possible UNDP roles in supporting theimplementation of development programmes.However, UNDP has the potential to play a rolein complementing budget support by, forexample, providing policy and technical support.Clearly thought- out interventions directed atcritical gaps in budget support were found to be lacking.

In several cases, UNDP developed interventionsas a response to the availability of donor funds.Rather than simply respond to funding opportu-nities, it is important that UNDP develop aprogramme strategy that is based on identifyingcritical gaps in key areas of UNDP interventionin order to mobilize funds. Such a focus is partic-ularly important in Uganda, where there is a largedonor presence and UNDP has limited resources.

UNDP was more reactive to governmentrequests than maintaining a proactive agenda ofcontributing to development results andinforming policy. Though UNDP was consistentin its support to monitoring the MDGs andpoverty, greater efforts are required to harmonizenational development goals and the MDGs.Despite initiatives in the area of privateenterprise support, UNDP could not adequatelyleverage its position to engage in policy issues inthat area. Support to reforms in the area ofgovernance did not receive the attention itdeserved in the two country programmes, even inareas such as local governance, where UNDP, inpartnership with UNCDF, was well positioned.Though UNDP had the organizational potentialto make contributions, it did not systematicallypursue such opportunities in participatory localgovernance, accountability and transparencymechanisms or strengthening electoral systems.

A comprehensive governance strategy addressingdifferent areas of governance was found to belacking, although there were important interven-tions in strengthening governance institutions fortransparency, justice, and disaster and conflictmanagement. At the time of the ADR, UNDPUganda had commissioned programme scopingin governance for the forthcoming country

programme. One of the areas identified at thelocal level was strengthening service delivery.Considering the weak social services at thedistrict and sub- district, this is an important areafor future support. It is crucial that UNDP bemore responsive and engage in furthering institu-tional and governance reforms at the national andlocal levels. Adequate core resources should beallocated for this, and UNDP should developpartnerships with multilateral and bilateralorganizations in order to play a strategic role inthe area of governance.

Recovery in northern Uganda is a critical issue.Besides conflict- affected districts, the Karamojaregion suffers from starvation and a high degreeof poverty. There is considerable focus on theregional disparities in development, and thegovernment has developed a policy frameworkfor northern Uganda and Karamoja. However,further efforts are needed in order to align thepriorities of northern Uganda in nationaldevelopment strategy. UNDP positioning onnorthern Uganda policy was not evident, andthere were indications that the participation inthe northern Uganda working group was passive.

UNDP developed a programme framework forconflict prevention and recovery interventions,addressing various dimensions of recovery,reconstruction and transition in northernUganda. While funds were not available toadequately pursue all outlined activities, therewere limitations in delivery of even the allocatedfunds. Conflict prevention and recoveryinterventions supported so far had varyingdegrees of success. At the national level, conflictprevention and recovery interventions havecontributed to strengthening institutions and tothe recovery process in critical areas relating toreintegration and security. This, however, did notenhance UNDP positioning in conflict preven-tion and recovery at the national and local levels,and its role in northern Uganda policy discus-sions was inadequate. While UNDP had thechallenging task of leading the early recoverycluster in a complex and politically sensitivesituation, its coordination efforts were perceived



to be less effective. UNDP did not systematicallyuse corporate expertise to provide support toearly recovery coordination. The programme alsohad limitations in terms of resources (e.g., funds,staffing and programme management, andexpertise available in the country office), whichprevented UNDP from playing a lead role atcritical times.

6.2 DEVELOPING PARTNERSHIPS

Over the years, UNDP developed partnershipswith the government, civil society and interna-tional development agencies. These partnershipshad varying degrees of engagement; they werebetter developed with the government at thenational level, were weaker with internationalagencies, and were limited with CSOs. Withsome exceptions, partnerships were generally adhoc and project or programme- based rather than strategic.

6.2.1 GOVERNMENT

UNDP programme support has largely beenimplemented through government systems, withworking partnerships primarily associated withthe national government. There were goodworking relations with some of governmentinstitutions (for example, the Office of the PrimeMinister, the National Planning Authority, andthe Parliament) and uneven with others. The government values its engagement withUNDP during peace- building and considersUNDP a trusted partner. However, it was notevident that UNDP could use its partnerships to leverage its position in the policy space inorder to engage in critical development issues,such as the MDGs, governance reforms,informing the national development strategy oraddressing regional disparities. Furthermore, itwas not clear if UNDP could build on itspartnership with the government in order toengage in coordination efforts and activelyparticipate in different working groups. Workingwith the government was compartmentalized tospecific interventions, and there were lower levelsof synergy than expected.

An issue that was apparent during the ADR— pointed out by a few respondents— was thatthough it is important that partnerships areinitiated at senior levels of government, UNDPdid not adequately ensure this. Recently, therehas been change in the implementation modalityof the UNDP programme from the ALD to anational implementation modality approachthrough respective line ministries. While moreclarity is required on the exact nature of theimplementation modality of the forthcomingprogramme, closing the ALD had implicationsfor how the partnership with UNDP is perceived.

Though programmes are implemented throughthe national government, UNDP should ensurebalance in working with the local government.Even in districts where UNDP had sub- offices,partnerships with the government at the districtand sub- district level were project- oriented andlacked a clear strategy for engagement to enhancecapacities. The Government of Uganda is initiating a large national programme on localgovernance with the support of The World Bank.UNDP should plan an approach to support thegovernment in these endeavours. For example,UNDP should systematically pursue aligning itsefforts to support participatory local planningand strengthening service delivery.

6.2.2 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

During the ADR, there were limitations onconsulting with donors of the UNDPprogramme in Uganda. These limitationsresulted in a partial understanding of the natureof partnership with international developmentagencies. From discussions with donor and UNagencies, there appeared to be a lack of partner-ships and synergies in areas of common interestwith UNDP. Furthermore, the agencies perceivedweaknesses in joint engagement, particularly inearly recovery, governance, northern Ugandaissues, recovery and reconstruction, and privateenterprise development. In the context of budgetsupport, UNDP lacked clarity on how to engagewith bilateral and multilateral organizations.



There were indications that UNDP haddifficulty mobilizing non- core funding, primarilydue to the prevalence of budget support in mostareas in Uganda. Although there was encourag-ing experience in basket funds in pastprogrammes (e.g., United Nations CapitalDevelopment Fund/LCCs, African Peer ReviewMechanism/New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment), UNDP has shown limitedengagement in terms of resource pooling. Theorganizational requirement that UNDP managebasket funds when resources are pooledconstrained further engagement in basket funds;other organizations were not always willing toallow UNDP to manage these funds.

Organizational factors constrained developingpartnerships and mobilizing funds in some areas(e.g., crisis prevention and recovery). Thereluctance of some donors to fund UNDPprogrammes was related to the lack of proactiveengagement by the country office in criticaldevelopment and post- conflict issues.Contributing factors included overextendedinvolvement, a lack of clear strategy in practiceareas and passive engagement with developmentissues (in some cases, donors were not aware ofUNDP activities). Intermittent presence ofsenior management in the country office furtherconstrained proper engagement with donor agencies.

During the ADR missions, it was evident thatUNDP Uganda was making concerted efforts toaddress organizational and programme- relatedissues. The recruitment of the Country Directorhas filled the leadership gap and provided anopportunity for more proactive engagement withdonors. It is also important for UNDP to exploreareas where it can provide technical assistance orstrengthen government capacities in order toenhance the effectiveness of budget support.UNDP should develop strategy documents inkey practice areas for mobilizing funds. Strategynotes should clearly outline the UNDP role inthe context of budget support.

6.2.3 CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

Partnerships with CSOs and NGOs in theimplementation of development and conflict

prevention and recovery programmes were foundto be weak. There was minimal involvement ofCSOs in the early recovery cluster. Uganda has alarge number of CSOs and NGOs, and theirparticipation in development and reconstructionis critical. A specific partnership strategy shouldbe developed in order to address the constraintsof decentralized interventions, especially insupporting local governance at the district level.More efforts are required to develop partnershipwith CSOs, both to benefit from their localexpertise and to strengthen their role in thedevelopment and reconstruction processes.

6.3 COORDINATION

6.3.1 DONOR COORDINATION

Uganda has several ongoing coordinationmechanisms, both in development and in post- conflict recovery. At the national level, UNDP ispart of the overall donor coordination structure.However, there has been a loss of the proactivecoordination that UNDP enjoyed during thenineties, mainly due to intermittent leadershipover the past two programming cycles. UNDPefforts lacked the impetus required for activeengagement and for leading coordination.Furthermore, UNDP was not an active partici-pant in coordination structures. At the time ofthe ADR, The World Bank was chairing thenorthern Uganda working group and the privatesector group. These groups are the main areas ofthe UNDP portfolio, where there should beproactive engagement. Although there wereindications that recently UNDP was moreactively engaging in coordination activities, andsince July 2009 chairing the northern Ugandadonor coordination, sustained efforts are requiredfor active participation in policy discussions.

UNDP has the responsibility of coordinating theearly recovery cluster. While national andinternational stakeholders could have been moreeffectively engaged, there were several limitationsto ensuring effective coordination of the cluster.UNDP participates in a number of technical andsector working groups that have been instrumen-tal in furthering debate on critical issues.



However, senior staff of UNDP did not partici-pate in such discussions. Interviews with govern-ment officials and donor agencies indicated thatin recent years, UNDP has lost its standing inpolicy discourse. In an environment of budgetsupport, it is important for UNDP to emphasizeits strength in providing technical and policysupport, which was not evident during the ADR.The UNDAF and country programme providean opportunity to actively engage in coordinationforums in order to regain some of the lost ground.

6.3.2 UN COORDINATION

The evaluation examined the contribution ofUNDP to UN coordination. One of thedimensions of such contribution was theResident Coordinator function, for whichUNDP is the host agency. It was not easy for theevaluation to delineate the intertwined roles ofthe UN Resident Coordinator, the UNDPResident Representative, and the HumanitarianCoordinator, although each has different lines ofaccountability. The ADR covered the periodprior to 2008, when the Resident Representativerole was much stronger in managing UNDPprogrammes and the firewall between the roles of Resident Coordinator and ResidentRepresentative was not clearly spelled out.Furthermore, it was only six months prior to theADR exercise that the Country Director inUganda was appointed. The manifestation of the roles of Resident Coordinator/ResidentRepresentative, its implications for theHumanitarian Coordinator function and how thestakeholders perceived these multiple rolesemerged from time to time during the evaluation.The present discussion, however, is confined tothose areas where UNDP had a specific role incontributing to UN coordination or other activi-ties that influenced UN contributions todevelopment results.

The UNDAF and humanitarian response werethe main joint activities of the UN in Uganda.UNDP supported the Resident Coordinator incoordinating the preparation of the ongoingUNDAF, while UNICEF supported coordinat-ing the forthcoming UNDAF. The Resident

Coordinator’s role in convening the UNDAFprocess was perceived by UN agencies aseffective. While the UNDAF includes amonitoring and evaluation framework, there hasnot yet been a joint evaluation of the UN system’scollective response in Uganda. Although UNagencies are supposed to develop their countryprogramme after the UNDAF has been finalized,some have already done so. There were indica-tions that UN agencies had different stakes andlevels of commitment to the UNDAF process.While UN agencies appear to be committed tothe UNDAF process, ownership of the UNDAFwas not uniform, making the coordination of theUN system challenging.

UNDP was the lead agency for the early recoverycluster. The implementation of the clusterapproach in a politically charged post- conflictsituation in Uganda required a more coordinatedapproach among UN agencies. Poor coordinationand competition among UN agencies contributedto the limited government involvement in clustercoordination. UNDP was not effective infurthering early recovery coordination. Chapter 4discusses the factors that constrained effective-ness of the early recovery cluster. There wereserious limitations in clearly delineating whateach of the components of the early recoverycluster, mainly governance, infrastructure andlivelihood, should entail. Considering that theearly recovery cluster was cross- cutting in nature,there were limitations in building on similarinterventions in clusters lead by other UNagencies. In particular, there were challenges incoordinating with UN agencies involved in thearea of livelihood and infrastructure supportwithin different clusters. Lessons from theUganda experience are critical for informing notonly the forthcoming program, but also foraddressing issues in operationalizing the clusterapproach and informing UN reforms and theInter Agency Standing Committee.

6.4 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

Organizational and programme managementfactors that have implications for UNDPpositioning in development and post- conflict



responses were examined. These include theweak capacity of the country office, the lack ofstrategy for different programme portfolios andweak monitoring and evaluation systems.

6.4.1 UNDP UGANDA INTERNAL CAPACITY

The contribution of UNDP to developmentresults and strategic positioning was severelyconstrained by poor human resource capacity andgaps in leadership at critical periods. Thoughhuman resources are key to proactive positioningand high performance, the UNDP Ugandahuman resource policy did not have equitablecontractual arrangements for positions at similarlevels. Contracts given to professional staff weread hoc and for short durations, which did notinstil staff morale.106 This has also led to highstaff turnover and partially explains why projectsare being carried over across country programmesas remaining staff takes over projects nominallyoutside their purview. In the future, UNDPshould strive to have full staff capacity and ensurethat contracts are awarded for the appropriateperiod. The country office should also ensure thathuman resource policy is uniformly applied interms of providing staff benefits. In addition tocontractual issues, it is important that thecountry office ensure that its professional staffhas the capacity to address the challenges inimplementing the programme, and to engage inpolicy discussions.

Another factor that contributed to organizationalunderperformance was the lack of continuity incountry office leadership. There were leadershipgaps at critical times, which led to the countryoffice functioning arbitrarily and without anysynergies between various programme areas.Lack of senior leadership also weakened engage-ment with government and donor agencies.Recently, a country director has been recruited,

and this provides an opportunity to addressorganizational anomalies.

As management review was not part of the ADRTerms of Reference, it is suggested that thecountry office carries out an organizational andmanagement review in order to address theseissues. For the next programme to be effective inachieving outcomes and contributing to results,high priority should be given to strengtheningorganizational practices, growing staff capacitiesand enhancing management procedures.

Considering existing staff constraints, a key roleof the UNV programme needs to be highlightedas having decisively contributed to the success ofa number of UNDP interventions. Volunteershave been placed in various positions at thenational and sub- office levels, and in a widerange of institutions as technical assistants onpolicy matters and as field staff.107 The UNVprogramme has played a major role in contribut-ing to achieving the country programmeobjectives, and implementing partners haveexpressed their satisfaction with the criticalsupport role of UNV staff. In some cases, theirwork was so highly regarded that one formervolunteer was contracted as staff. Almost all ofthe feedback received regarding UNV staffduring the ADR exercise proved quite positive,which points to a generally good selection of thecandidates that were posted in Uganda.

6.4.2 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY

During the assessment period, UNDP largelyfollowed the national execution modalityimplemented through the ALD within theMFPED. The ministry and UNDP jointlydecided to close the unit in January 2008 anddesign a new modality of support. In April 2008,an external evaluation was undertaken to identify

106. In the country office, 60 percent of staff is project- funded, 31 percent is core- funded and 9 percent are funded from extra- budgetary resources. The bulk of core funding is for staff in operations (e.g., drivers, human resources, project sup-port) but not for programme staff, with only one core staff member in conflict prevention and recovery and poverty andtwo in governance. Even the extra- budgetary staff is essentially operations staff, but that also affects capacity because extra- budgetary staff has job insecurity. On projects, ALD service contracts are given (without benefits) for a maximumof up to 4 years. The beneficiary has the option to pay for insurance, which is not paid for by the organization.

107. For example, IGG, Uganda Human Rights Commission, UNCDF/LCCs.



the way forward. There was no managementresponse to the evaluation, and it was not evidentwhich approach UNDP intends to follow in theimplementation of UNDP- supported programmesin the future. While the forthcoming countryprogramme indicates the national executionmodality, the details are yet to be outlined.

During the ADR exercise, meetings with theMFPED indicated that UNDP did not carry outan assessment of the government’s financialsystem. This, to an extent, was seen to constrainthe operational effectiveness of programmeimplementation and of fulfilling the accountingrequirements of UNDP. There was also a percep-tion among government counterparts thatUNDP procedures were rigid. While there isneed for better consensus on implementationprocedures, it is important for UNDP to follow aphased approach if there is a need to strengthengovernment systems and to make UNDPprogramme implementation transparent.

There were limitations in UNDP procedures andtimelines in disbursing funds. While corporateprogramme procedures contributed to delays, itappears that there were additional reasons forsuch delays. It is important that UNDP clarifiesits procedures to implementing partner agenciesand supports them in order to strengthen theiradministrative and finance systems. With theexception of the National PlanningAuthority/African Peer Review Mechanism andthe Office of the Prime Minister, all otherimplementing partners complained of delays inreceiving funds (from two to three months up toseven months). Some of the implementingpartners did not receive first quarter 2009 fundsuntil the end of April 2009, leading to delay inimplementation. There were more delays inconflict prevention and recovery compared toother areas of the programme, mainly attributableto lack of effective administrative functioning.

6.4.3 PROGRAMME DESIGN

While the evaluation recognizes that UNDPcontributions to development results are notnecessarily directly tied to the amount of funds

spent on individual interventions, resources werespread too thinly across UNDP practice areas.The pilot approach allows UNDP to develop asmall model, which the government or donorscan then scale up. While there are advantages inhaving a few pilots, it was found that resourceswere being dispersed and did not have the depthnecessary to ensure any meaningful contribution.UNDP would benefit from fewer interventionsand more sustained support.

The programmes did not have exit strategies orbenchmarks to define success. This createdambiguities for local ownership, handover andsustainability of the programmes. In some casesunder the current country programme, interven-tions did not have project documentation. Whilethis provides UNDP the flexibility to adapt tochanging circumstances, it makes successappraisal difficult, as the contents of annual workplans were not detailed enough and were subjectto varying interpretations by stakeholders.

6.4.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

There were many project and outcome evalua-tions. The programme, however, lacked acomprehensive monitoring and evaluationstrategy across areas of practice. Concurrentanalysis and monitoring of progress towardsplanned development results was also found to belacking, and the adaption of the results- basedmanagement system was weak. The programmewas largely activity and output driven, andmonitoring for outcome indicators and linkages tobroader development processes was not available.

In terms of project and programme designs,many lack an initial database, thereby makingprogress difficult to ascertain. In many cases,particularly in the area of governance, it isdifficult to identify outcome indicators. With theestablishment of a management support unitwith a monitoring and evaluation officer sinceFebruary 2008, a critical gap for programme andmanagement decision- making was filled.However, more needs to be done in terms ofstrengthening the monitoring and evaluationculture in programme management. Monitoring



and evaluation training for programme staffwould contribute to developing internal capacity,ensuring ownership and commitment to the useof appropriate tools.

Information management and reporting in thecountry office is weak and needs substantial

upgrading. It was very difficult for the evaluationteam to obtain the required information, and insome cases information was found to be lacking.This was highlighted in a number of independ-ent evaluations since 2005, no efforts were madeto address this.


C H A P T E R 7 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 6 9

This chapter summarizes the main conclusions ofthe ADR, followed by specific recommendationsfor UNDP Uganda. Recommendations are aimedat addressing the main challenges identified inthe previous sections and are intended to furtherstrengthen UNDP contribution to nationaldevelopment results.

7.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS

UNDP contributions have been significant interms of responsiveness to national prioritiesand needs. Although many short- term outcomeswere achieved, the contribution to long- termdevelopment results was moderate.

There were many positive features of the UNDPresponse in Uganda. Amid a competitive aidenvironment particularly predisposed to budgetsupport, UNDP was successful in maintaining itsrelevance. UNDP implemented programmes,largely through government agencies; respondedto various requests for support from the govern-ment in development and post- conflictreconstruction; and supported the implementa-tion of the PEAP and policies on post- conflictrecovery and human security. Strong partnershipswere developed with key government agencies(e.g., the IGG, the National Planning Authority/African Peer Review Mechanism, the Office ofthe Prime Minister, the Parliament, the PublicProcurement and Disposal of Public AssetsAuthority, and the Uganda Human RightsCommission). UNDP demonstrated strongcommitment to post- conflict recovery, humansecurity and providing support to establishingdemocratic institutions at different levels. Therewere instances where government institutionsused UNDP support as start- up funds to leverageadditional donor resources.

Despite effectiveness in achieving the individualoutputs outlined in country programme documents,this evaluation concludes that the overalldevelopment performance and effectiveness ofthe programme varied, particularly in terms ofthe sustainability and measurability of resultsachieved. There were limited synergies betweenvarious programme interventions. Intendedoutcomes were not fully realized and often did notcomplement similar efforts by the government.

A portfolio of individual projects comprisedsupport to the governance and poverty reductionareas. This portfolio, however, lacked clarity oncontribution to development results in theseareas. The level of achievement of outcome of the UNDP- supported interventions to strengthendemocratic processes at the district and sub- district levels (e.g., support to local governance,LCCs, the PDM process and the UNCDF- funded District Disaster Preparedness- II)appeared to be relatively modest. The pilots indifferent programme areas did not always informgovernment programmes, although there wereexceptions, such as the joint programme withUNCDF (which was replicated by The World Bank- funded Local Government DevelopmentProgramme). Several small interventions withdifferent rationales did not consolidate into acommon outcome. Some pilot projects (e.g., theenergy multi- platform project) were so small inscope that there were no comparative advantagesfor UNDP to engage in them.

UNDP contributions to post- conflict recoveryhad mixed results. While contribution tostrengthening institutional mechanisms was a factor in achieving results, there were limitations in informing a holistic approach to recovery.

Chapter 7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


C H A P T E R 7 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S7 0

UNDP has been responsive to post- conflictneeds and has made efforts to strengthen institu-tional capacities to better respond to post- conflict recovery and reconciliation. The supportto the Office of the Prime Minister (includingthe Amnesty Commission, the District DisasterManagement Committee and the Uganda MineAction Centre) enhanced the government’scapacity to respond to post- conflict recoveryneeds. UNDP support also contributed tooperationalizing the internally displaced personspolicy and facilitating their safe return. Inaddition, activities in human security throughsupport to reduction of small arms and lightweapons were promising in some areas, such asreducing weapon stockpiles.

Despite achievements in short- term outcomes,contributions to results in the conflict preventionand recovery programme were mixed. UNDPwas not effective in implementing theprogramme in a complex and fast- movingoperating environment, which required quickresponse and adaptability. There were severelimitations in operationalizing a comprehensiveconflict prevention and recovery programme.While UNDP developed a programmeframework for implementing conflict preventionand recovery activities, implementation wasconstrained by a lack of adequate resources. Theconflict prevention and recovery area wasdetached from the rest of the countryprogramme, and very little effort was made tolink it to other programme areas of UNDP, such as poverty reduction or governance.Notwithstanding support to the formulation ofpolicies for internally displaced persons anddisaster prevention and mitigation, UNDPengagement in northern Uganda policy discus-sions was not at the desired level. Furthermore,UNDP was not effective in enhancing linkagesbetween post- conflict recovery and longer- termnational development objectives.

Early recovery cluster coordination was carriedout in a complex post- conflict environment.UNDP was not effective as an early recoverycluster lead, and missed opportunities for

playing a more proactive role in taking forwardan early recovery agenda. There were limita-tions on providing clarity on what earlyrecovery entails and on ensuring the participa-tion of government and other agencies.

Uganda was one of the pilots for the humanitar-ian cluster approach, along with the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Liberia and Pakistan.UNDP had the challenging task of leading theearly recovery cluster. While the scope of earlyrecovery (which included governance, infrastruc-ture and livelihood) was in many ways critical toareas in recovery and transition, UNDP was lesseffective in providing direction and leadership intaking forward the agenda of early recovery.There were limitations on ensuring ownership ofcoordination by the government and participa-tion of concerned stakeholders.

Despite substantial funds from the Bureau forCrisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP was noteffective in ensuring the delivery of early recoveryactivities. Lack of adequate capacities (e.g.,human resources, expertise) and frequent leader-ship gaps at critical times contributed to poorsupport to coordination. While clusters willconclude in August 2009, further efforts arerequired in order to achieve outcomes in the areaof recovery. The lessons from the Uganda experi-ence will be valuable for UNDP in strengtheningthe early recovery cluster approach.

National capacity development and institutionstrengthening are central to the UNDPprogramme framework and are key componentsof UNDP corporate goals. However, theoperationalization of capacity development has been less strategic and lacked a time- frameand exit strategy. UNDP did not position itselfwell in the context of the prevalent budgetsupport in Uganda.

Capacity development is a clearly recognizedprogramme priority of UNDP Uganda, althoughsome questions remain as to what this entails.Among government institutions, capacitydevelopment is associated with the sustainabilityof state institutions through funding and



technical assistance. Uganda has large andcontinuous budget support from the donorcommunity, and there is an expectation thatcapacity development should be seen as a naturalpart of that process. There was no commonunderstanding of the parameters of capacitydevelopment. More specifically, capacitydevelopment was not always understood in termsof better governance, strengthening the capacitiesof institutions and leadership, and enhancingtransparency and accountability.

Lack of a country- specific strategy on capacitydevelopment in many ways constrained theeffectiveness of UNDP support. Capacitydevelopment was not mainstreamed into UNDP- supported programmes. While there wasa commitment by the country office tostrengthen institutions and develop capacities, itlacked a clear vision as to what must be achieved.A wide range of state institutions have benefitedfrom UNDP support and consider themselves tohave increased their capacity, mainly in terms ofincreased staff numbers. Interventions, however,remain at the individual level and are notinformed by a consistent capacity developmentapproach. Furthermore, there are no benchmarksto indicate progress towards outcomes andintended results, or to indicate the gradualdisengagement of UNDP support.

Weak programme management and lack ofleadership at critical points constrained effectivecontributions to results. Programme manage-ment was constrained by several critical factors,including lack of adequate qualified staff, weaksynergies among different areas of the programme,and poor reporting and monitoring.

UNDP Uganda had intermittent senior leader-ship. During the period under review, there werea number of leadership changes and periodswhen senior management positions were notfilled. An evolving and complex humanitariansituation created additional responsibilities, and at critical junctures, UNDP was under- capacitated to respond to evolving demands. Arelated issue was the lack of a human resource

policy that would have systematically addressed staff- related issues. Lack of compatibility betweenprogramme and human resource investmentinfluenced progress in achieving outcomes. Staffcapacity and quality were not commensurate withthe tasks UNDP had to fulfill. Sub- officescreated in the north lacked sufficient staff andwere not adequately empowered to engage inproject implementation.

Planning, documenting and monitoring wereweak across programme areas. There is a lack ofbaseline data, clear benchmarks or indicators toappraise progress and results. Concurrent analysisand monitoring of progress towards planneddevelopment results was also found to be lacking,and the adaption of the resultsbased manage-ment system was weak. The programme waslargely activity and output driven, and monitor-ing for outcome indicators and linkages tobroader development processes was not available.Further, most interventions lacked a clear exitstrategy, although the programme aimed toreplicate successful projects. Addressing sustain-ability was largely found to be absent in interven-tion design. The findings and recommendationsof project and outcome evaluations were notsystematically used to strengthen programme quality.

Programme efficiency was undermined byspreading funds across many unrelated activi-ties and by poor capacity of UNDP to disbursefunds in a timely manner.

Limited funds were spread across a wide range ofactivities, often on such a small scale that theycould not contribute to effective or sustainableresults. Rather than providing sufficient depthand longer- term commitment in fewer areas,UNDP was involved in a wide range of activities,and with the available evidence, it was notpossible to measure contribution to results.

Programme efficiency was also constrained bychallenges in the UNDP capacity to disbursefunds in a timely manner. Absorption capacitywas low in conflict prevention and recoveryinterventions, limiting programme effectivenessas well as the implementation of intended activi-



ties within the programme. In many ways, poorfund management undermined the financialsustainability of programmes and minimized thepossibility of additional funding.

The comparative advantage of UNDP inaddressing social development issues andpolicy was not fully realized. The efforts ofUNDP were not optimal in developingstrategic partnerships with internationalagencies and networks.

While UNDP has the potential to play a criticalrole in complementing budget support (by, forexample, providing policy and technical support),this was not fully optimized. UNDP programmesupport would have made better contributions toresults had partnerships been developed withother agencies or had interventions been basedon a careful analysis of ongoing support to thegovernment from other agencies. UNDP did nothave a programme strategy in a context where 71percent of development cooperation is budgetsupport. Clearly thought- out interventions andpartnerships directed at addressing critical gapsin budget support, essential for strategicpositioning, were lacking.

The participation of NGOs and CSOs was notensured in the UNDP- supported programmes.In seeking partnerships, UNDP largely over-looked civil society, NGOs and community- based organizations.

Uganda has a large number of NGOs and CSOs,and some of them have the potential to comple-ment government efforts in development and post- conflict reconstruction. When respondingto national priorities, UNDP did not sufficientlydevelop partnerships with NGOs and CSOs orfacilitate their engagement in developmentprocesses. There were limited efforts tostrengthen the capacities of NGOs.

The cross- cutting issues emphasized in the twoUNDP country programmes are relevant in thecontext of Uganda and within the framework ofnational development strategies. However, theintegration of cross- cutting issues across

interventions has been modest, both inprogramme design and in implementation.Similarly, the contribution was modest insupporting the government in furthering theintegration of cross- cutting issues.

The Government of Uganda has policies tosupport the integration of gender equality andaddressing HIV/AIDS into developmentplanning and budgeting. Though UNDP contri-butions to furthering government policies wereimportant from the standpoint of individualinterventions, there were limitations in enablingresults. UNDP support to poverty monitoringand MDG reporting was not effectively alignedwith government mechanisms. There werelimitations in using programme interventions inthe area of poverty reduction and sustainablelivelihoods to achieve the MDGs.

Planning and implementing gender as a cross- cutting issue were not effective. While differentprojects took measures to include women asbeneficiaries, the programme lacked a systematicframework to carry out gender analysis in orderto guide programme design and to achieve ormonitor progress in gender relations. UNDPmade important contributions in informinggovernment policy in addressing HIV/AIDSthrough policy studies. However, incorporatingHIV/AIDS as a cross- cutting issue in UNDPprogrammes was minimal. Environment and climate- change impact did not receive adequateattention either as a programme area or a cross- cutting issue, and linkages with poverty reductionand sustainable livelihoods appeared weak inboth design and implementation.

7.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.2.1 PROGRAMME STRATEGY AND APPROACH

UNDP interventions should support policyformulation and coordination in developmentand post- conflict recovery. Efforts must betaken to ensure that a large component of the programme entails a systematic approach to engaging in policy and technical support for implementation.



UNDP should be strategic both in developingpartnerships and in identifying policy areaswhere its support would complement ongoingdevelopment efforts.

Considering that donor assistance in Uganda islargely in the form of budget support, UNDPshould be strategic in both developing partner-ships and in identifying policy areas where itssupport will contribute to furthering develop-ment results. Building on consultations andpartnerships with government and otherdevelopment agencies, UNDP should ensure thatprogramme support is aimed at addressingcapacity, policy and advocacy issues related toregional disparities in poverty, strengtheningaccountability and transparency in governanceand in post- conflict recovery.

In approaching these partnerships, UNDPshould make sufficient efforts to clarify, to boththe government and the donor community, thenature of the support it can provide to comple-ment budget support and efforts by variousstakeholders. This should be clearly outlined inthe country programme.

UNDP should enhance its support to attainingthe MDGs in order to address regional dispari-ties in poverty. UNDP should make a strongercommitment to address cross- cutting issues,particularly the MDGs, HIV/AIDS andgender. UNDP should consider supportingregional MDG reports.

Uganda is comfortably poised to achieve MDGtargets in most areas by 2015. However, areassuch as maternal health and regional disparitiesin poverty remain a challenge. While UNDPshould continue its support to poverty and MDGmonitoring, adequate measures should be takento align efforts with the national povertymonitoring carried out by the Office of thePrime Minister. UNDP should be proactive inensuring the harmonization of national develop-ment targets with MDG targets in areas wherethe former are less ambitious than the latter. Arelated issue is addressing regional disparities inpoverty and development. UNDP should payspecial attention in its forthcoming programme

to informing policy and practice related to theseareas. Efforts were made in the ongoingprogramme to support district MDG reports.Considering the large number of districts inUganda, UNDP should instead considersupporting regional MDG reports.

In the forthcoming programme, UNDP hasidentified pro- poor policies for achieving growthwith equity as an area of support to the govern-ment. This includes capacity development for MDG- based planning. UNDP should ensureproper implementation of this importantdimension of poverty reduction support.

UNDP should also make stronger commitmentsto addressing cross- cutting issues, particularlygender and HIV/AIDS. In the forthcomingprogramme, UNDP should take sufficientmeasures to ensure that gender analysis informsprogramme design and implementation, includingrevisiting some of the existing programme plans.MDG reporting should be further strengthenedin order to provide gender- disaggregatedanalysis. Gender inequality becomes furtheraggravated amidst other vulnerabilities, such asconflict. UNDP should place specific emphasison the gender dimensions of reconstruction andtransition in the recovery programme. In order tomaximize results in this area, UNDP shouldstrengthen partnerships with agencies that havesimilar interests.

Measures should be taken to systematicallyintegrate HIV/AIDS issues into programmeinterventions. In the ongoing countryprogramme, UNDP supported a study to informgovernment policy on HIV/AIDS. Given theincreases in the prevalence rate of HIV/AIDSduring the past two years, similar efforts shouldbe pursued in the forthcoming programme tofurther advocacy in the area.

Given the importance of linkages betweensustainable environment and poverty reduction,UNDP should take specific measures to integrateenvironment and climate change adaptation as a cross- cutting issue across programmeinterventions, particularly in poverty reductionand disaster management interventions.



Considering the challenges of environmentalsustainability and climate change adaptation forUganda, further efforts are needed by UNDP tosupport reducing vulnerability to climate change- related disasters. In the ongoing programme,support was extended to disaster managementinitiatives, and the environment was included asa component of poverty reduction. Consideringthere are other agencies working on environmen-tal issues in Uganda, UNDP should identify areaswhere it can complement ongoing efforts andinform government practice and policy.

To make meaningful contributions to develop-ment results, UNDP should be strategic inusing its resources and reduce the number ofinterventions. UNDP should develop a fundmobilization strategy to support programmesin critical areas. This strategy should includeareas where UNDP would engage on a long- term basis.

Instead of being reactive to donor needs, UNDPshould put forth a clear plan of action, covering aminimum period of five years, in key areas ofprogramme intervention. During the ADRperiod, UNDP had carried out programmescoping for governance and private- sectorsupport. This is a step in the right direction, andfurther measures should be taken to preparestrategy documents for these programme areas.In governance, UNDP has identified servicedelivery at the local level as one possible area ofintervention. Other areas where UNDP has thepotential to strengthen governance include enhancingtransparency and accountability mechanisms.

UNDP should revisit its northern Ugandaprogramme strategy and pay specific attention toinforming government policy regarding theintegration of northern Uganda developmentpriorities into the national development strategy.UNDP should focus on areas in northernUganda where support would be more meaning-ful and would complement ongoing efforts.

UNDP should reduce the number of smallinterventions that do not have substantialrelevance in terms of contribution to develop-ment results. Instead, it should focus on fewer

interventions, over a longer period of time, which would enhance development results.UNDP needs to assess where its efforts can have the most effect and where corporate capacities can be harnessed, and then align itsactivities accordingly.

UNDP should continue advocating and support-ing peace- building initiatives together withinterventions pertaining to human security.These initiatives should include support todemining and to small arms and light weaponscollection and destruction. UNDP shouldsupport national priorities under the Peace,Recovery and Development Plan for NorthernUganda through proactive advocacy and supportto local coordination mechanisms in the fouridentified northern regions.

UNDP should no longer work on intervention- specific pilot projects. The pilot approachshould only be used for integrated approachesat the district level and with interventions thatare both mutually reinforcing across practiceareas and are linked by measurable andcommon objectives.

This will ensure that interventions remainfocused and are conducive to creating substantialresults. In addition, it will avoid the dispersion ofresources along unchartered programmatic lineswith no demonstrated contribution to MDG ordevelopment priorities.

A focus on districts as programme entry points will allow UNDP to carry out initialparticipatory baselines and discuss expectedresults with stakeholders, so that a districtmonitoring and evaluation plan is a reflection ofthe participatory process.

UNDP should clarify what is intended bycapacity development and outline supportparameters. There should be a clear frameworkfor implementing and monitoring capacitydevelopment activities.

A core area of UNDP support involves developingthe capacities of national institutions. Forcapacity development interventions, UNDP



should develop clear parameters and timelines,and embed them within the programme strategyfor each area. While there should be periodicmonitoring of interventions’ progress, UNDPshould also take sufficient measures to ensurethat all concerned stakeholders have a commonunderstanding of these strategies.

UNDP has been consistent in implementingprogrammes through the government, which isessential for developing national capacities. Foreffective implementation of developmentprogrammes, further efforts should be made tostrengthen the administrative and financemechanisms of government partners.

UNDP should define the role it can play incoordination and more systematically engage invarious coordination mechanisms in the country.

UNDP should be more proactive in its engage-ment of sector working groups and in the coordi-nation mechanisms on northern Ugandadevelopment, governance, poverty reduction and privatesector support. There are several PovertyEradication Action Plan/National DevelopmentStrategy working groups, in addition to sectorgroups and donor coordination mechanisms.UNDP should actively engage in areas that arerelevant to its programme agenda and where it isorganizationally well placed to contribute. Thereshould be more efforts to support policy andresearch papers in key UNDP areas of development.Sufficient resources should be allocated for suchactivities, and UNDP should ensure that senior- level staff participates in coordination meetings.

UNDP should be more proactive in advocatingthe human development dimensions of growthand poverty reduction. UNDP should extendcontinuous support to advocacy tools such asHuman Development Reports, including takingsteps to support regional Human DevelopmentReports in the forthcoming programme.

Uganda has good statistics on the poverty andsocial sectors. To provide effective feedback topolicy makers, UNDP should provide morestructured information on key development

issues, as UNDP has not yet identified or filledstrategic gaps in this area. National HumanDevelopment Reports are a useful advocacy tool,because they provide alternative perspectives onkey development issues, inform development andtransition processes, and complement analysis ofthe poverty and social sectors. It is suggested thatUNDP support a Human Development Reporton linkages among post- conflict reconstruction,national development strategies; and genderissues in development. To be useful to develop-ment stakeholders, the reports should be of highquality and credibility.

UNDP should proactively explore the possibilityof supporting Regional Human DevelopmentReports, which will complement the analysis ofthe poverty and social sectors. This will alsoprovide an opportunity to address some of the region- specific issues in human development.

UNDP should strengthen its partnerships withNGOs and CSOs in engaging in developmentand taking a proactive advocacy role. Theagency should support measures to facilitatelinkages among the government, the privatesector and NGOs in engaging in post- conflictand development issues.

The African Peer Review Mechanism processhas shown that civil society can play an importantrole in informing development planning. UNDPshould play a supportive role in furthering therole of NGOs and CSOs in developmentplanning. Wherever possible, UNDP shouldstrengthen the capacities of NGOs and CSOs tobe able to play an effective role in developmentprocesses. A clear strategy should also beformulated for working with NGOs in order to strengthen their public accountability rolewith government.

7.2.2 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

UNDP should strengthen its presence at thelocal level. The capacities of area offices shouldbe further strengthened and empowered inorder to ensure that interventions play aneffective role in programme implementation.



Strengthening the effectiveness of theprogramme— particularly in supportinginterventions in northern Uganda— andstrengthening service delivery at the local levelboth require strong area offices. UNDP shouldtake sufficient measures to improve the staffcapacity of the area offices and ensure the officesare adequately empowered to play an effectiverole in the implementation of programmeinterventions. Field offices should also strengthenlinkages between government and non- stateactors in development intervention. Field officestaff should be experienced in governance andpoverty reduction issues, so that the office canperform as a UNDP office rather than beinglimited to conflict prevention and recovery issues.

UNDP should substantially strengthen theresults focus of the country programme. This

should include a strong programme manage-ment system and a monitoring and evaluationframework, and there should be optimal use ofthe resultsbased management system.

For improved contribution to developmentresults, UNDP should take urgent measures tostrengthen programme reporting tools andsystems. Results- based management needs to bestrengthened, and in the forthcomingprogramme UNDP should include systematicmonitoring of outcome indicators. Baselineinformation should be prepared for all outputsand outcomes. UNDP should strengthen genderanalysis and gender- disaggregated data for allinterventions. Adequate human resources andfunds should be allocated for monitoring andevaluation of the programme.


A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 7 7

1. INTRODUCTION

The Evaluation Office (EO) of the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP)conducts country evaluations called Assessmentsof Development Results (ADRs) to capture anddemonstrate evaluative evidence of UNDP contri-butions to development results at the countrylevel. ADRs are carried out within the overallprovisions contained in the UNDP EvaluationPolicy.108 The overall goals of an ADR are to:

1. Provide substantive support to theAdministrator’s accountability function inreporting to the Executive Board;

2. Support greater UNDP accountability tonational stakeholders and partners in theprogramme country;

3. Serve as a means of quality assurance forUNDP interventions in Uganda; and

4. Contribute to learning at corporate, regionaland country levels.

The EO plans to conduct an ADR in Ugandabeginning February 2009. The ADR will focuson the results achieved during the ongoingcountry programme (2006–2010, abridged to2009), while the previous country programme(2001–2005) will be assessed as background. TheADR will contribute to the preparation of theforthcoming United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework (UNDAF) of Uganda andcountry programme.

2. BACKGROUND

In the past decade, Uganda has made considerableprogress in socio- economic and human develop-ment. The government adopted the Poverty

Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) in 1997. ThePEAP aims to reduce absolute poverty to at least to10 percent of the population by 2017 and outlinesthe following five priority areas (or key pillars):economic management; enhancing production,competitiveness and incomes; security, conflictresolution and disaster management; goodgovernance; and human development. In the pastdecade, there were periodic revisions of the PEAP,and the government is currently revising it into a five- year National Development Plan focusing onthe five key pillars.

Since 2000, economic growth in Uganda hasaveraged 7.8 percent, and in the recent years— over 8 percent. However, while overall povertydropped from 56 percent in 1992 to 31 percent in2006, there has been growth in the populationliving below the poverty line. The key develop-ment challenges in Uganda include extremepoverty, slowdown in agriculture production andprolonged drought, and a high populationgrowth and dependency ratio. There are regionalvariations in poverty and gender equality, withregions affected by war and the eastern andwestern regions being the most affected.

UNDP has been implementing programmes inUganda since 1977; the first country programmewas implemented from 1997 to 2000. In responseto Uganda’s development challenges, UNDPaimed to contribute to the realization of thePEAP and for timely achievement of theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs), asarticulated in the UNDAF. Since the year 2000,there were two UNDAFs, 2001–2005 and2006–2010 (abridged to 2009), and two countryprogrammes for the same periods. The secondcountry programme (2001–2005) had two

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

108. See http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation- Policy.pdf.


A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E7 8

thematic areas: good governance and sustainablelivelihoods. The third country programme(2006–2009) has three programme areas: povertyreduction, democratic governance, and crisisprevention and recovery. The cross- cutting issuesfor the second and third country programmeswere gender, HIV/AIDS and environment, whilea rights- based approach was also included in thethird programme.

The completion of the two UNDAFs andcountry programmes in Uganda during2001–2005 and 2006–2009 presents an opportu-nity to evaluate the contributions of UNDP to national development results. The findingswill be used as inputs in the preparation of the 2011–2015 country programme and theUNDAF for the same period.

3. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The objectives of the ADR in Uganda include:

� To provide an independent assessment of theprogress, or lack thereof, towards the expectedoutcomes envisaged in UNDP programmingdocuments. Where appropriate, the ADRwill also highlight unexpected outcomes (positiveor negative) and missed opportunities;

� To provide an analysis of how UNDP haspositioned itself to add value in response tonational needs and changes in the nationaldevelopment context; and

� To present key findings, draw key lessons andprovide a set of clear and forward- lookingoptions for management to make adjust-ments in the current strategy and nextcountry programme.

The ADR will review UNDP experience in theUganda and its contributions to solving social,economic and political challenges. The evalua-tion will cover the ongoing and previous countryprogrammes of 2006–2009 and 2001–2005,respectively. Although greater emphasis will beplaced on more recent interventions (due to

better availability of data), efforts will be made toexamine the development and implementation ofUNDP programmes during the last countryprogramme. The identification of existingevaluative evidence and potential constraints(e.g., lack of records, institutional memory) willoccur during the initial Scoping Mission (seeSection 4 for further details).

The overall methodology will be consistent withthe ADR Guidelines prepared by the EO (datedJanuary 2009). The evaluation will undertake acomprehensive review of the UNDP programmeportfolio and activities during the period underreview, specifically examining the UNDP contri-bution to national development results. It willassess key results, specifically outcomes— anticipated and unanticipated, positive andnegative, intentional and unintentional— and willcover UNDP assistance funded from both coreand non- core resources.

The evaluation has two main components, theanalysis of development results and the strategicpositioning of UNDP.

DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

The assessment of development outcomes willentail a comprehensive review of the UNDPprogramme portfolio of the previous andongoing programme cycles. This includes anassessment of development results achieved andthe contributions of UNDP in terms of: keyinterventions; progress in achieving outcomes forthe ongoing country programme; factorsinfluencing results (UNDP positioning andcapacities, partnerships, policy support); achieve-ments, progress and contributions of UNDP inpractice areas (both in policy and advocacy); andan analysis of cross- cutting linkages and theirrelationship to the MDGs and the UNDAF. Theanalysis of development results will identifychallenges and strategies for future interventions.

Besides using available information, the evalua-tion will document and analyse achievementsagainst intended outcomes and linkages betweenactivities, outputs and outcomes. The evaluation



will qualify UNDP contribution to outcomeswith a reasonable degree of plausibility. Theevaluation will assess a core set of criteria relatedto the design, management and implementationof its interventions in the country:

� Effectiveness: Did the UNDP programmeaccomplish its intended objectives andplanned results? What are the strengths andweaknesses of the programme? What are theunexpected results it yielded? Should itcontinue in the same direction or should itsmain tenets be reviewed for the new cycle?

� Efficiency: How well did UNDP use itsresources (human and financial) in achievingits contributions? What could be done toensure a more efficient use of resources in thespecific country/subregional context?

� Sustainability: Are the UNDP contribu-tions sustainable? Are the developmentresults achieved through UNDP contribu-tions sustainable? Are the benefits of UNDPinterventions sustained and owned bynational stakeholders after the intervention is completed?

Special efforts will be made to examine UNDPcontributions to capacity development, knowledgemanagement and gender equality.

STRATEGIC POSITIONING

The evaluation will assess the strategic position-ing of UNDP, both from the perspective oforganization and the development priorities inthe country. This entails: i) a systematic analysisof the UNDP place and niche within thedevelopment and policy space in Uganda; ii) thestrategies used by UNDP Uganda to strengthenthe position of UNDP in the development spaceand create a position for the organization in thecore practice areas; iii) from the perspective ofdevelopment results for the country, the assessmentwill evaluate the policy support and advocacyinitiatives of UNDP programme vis- à- vis otherstakeholders. In addition, the evaluation willanalyse a core set of criteria related to thestrategic positioning of UNDP. Criteria include:

� Relevance: How relevant are UNDPprogrammes to the priority needs of thecountry? Did UNDP apply the right strategywithin the specific political, economic andsocial context of the region? To what extentare long- term development needs likely to bemet across the practice areas? What were thecritical gaps in UNDP programming?

� Responsiveness: How did UNDP anticipateand respond to significant changes in thenational development context? How didUNDP respond to national long- termdevelopment needs? What were the missedopportunities in UNDP programming?

� Social equity: Did the programmes andinterventions of UNDP lead to reducedvulnerabilities in the country? Did UNDPinterventions in any way influence theexisting inequities (exclusion/inclusion) inthe society? Was the selection of geographi-cal areas of intervention guided by need?

� Partnerships: How has UNDP leveragedpartnerships within the UN system as well aswith national civil society and private sector?

The evaluation will also consider the influence ofadministrative constraints affecting the programme,specifically on UNDP contributions (includingissues related to the relevance and effectiveness ofthe monitoring and evaluation system). If duringinitial analysis these are considered important,they will be included in the scope of the evalua-tion. Within the context of partnerships with theUN system and overall UN coordination, thespecific issue of the development of jointprogrammes will be highlighted.

4. EVALUATION METHODS AND APPROACHES

DATA COLLECTION

The evaluation will use a multiple- method approachfor data collection that includes desk reviews,workshops, group and individual interviews (atboth headquarters and the country office),project/field visits and surveys. The appropriateset of methods will vary depending on countrycontext, and the precise nature will be



determined during the Scoping Mission anddetailed in an inception report.109

VALIDATION

Data analysis will follow objective, verifiablemethods. All information will be triangulatedand validated to the greatest possible extent.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

A strong participatory approach involvingconcerned stakeholders is envisaged. The identi-fication of the stakeholders, including govern-ment representatives of ministries/agencies, civilsociety organizations, privatesector representa-tives, UN agencies, multilateral organizations,bilateral donors and beneficiaries will be carriedout. To facilitate this approach, the ADR willinclude a process of stakeholder mapping thatwill include both UNDP direct partners as wellas stakeholders who do not work directly with UNDP.

5. EVALUATION PROCESS

The ADR process will follow the ADR Guidelines,according to which the process can be divided inthree phases, each including several steps.

PHASE 1: PREPARATION

Desk review: The review (identification, collec-tion and mapping of relevant documentation andother data) will be initially carried out by the EOand continued by the evaluation team. This willinclude general development- related documenta-tion related to Uganda, as well as a comprehen-sive overview of the UNDP programme over theperiod being examined.

Stakeholder mapping: A basic mapping ofstakeholders relevant to the evaluation in Ugandawill be carried out. These will include state andcivil society stakeholders and will go beyondUNDP partners. The mapping exercise will also indicate the relationships among differentsets of stakeholders.

Inception meetings: Meetings will includeinterviews and discussions in UNDP headquar-ters with the EO (process and methodology), theRegional Bureau for Africa (context and countyprogramme), as well as with other relevantbureaux (including the Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy and the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery).

Scoping mission: A mission to Uganda will:

� Identify and collect further documentation;

� Validate the mapping of the country programmes;

� Get key stakeholder perspectives on keyissues that should be examined;

� Address logistics issues related to the mainmission, including timing;

� Identify the appropriate set of data collectionand analysis methods;

� Address management issues related to therest of the evaluation process, includingdivision of labour among the team members; and

� Ensure the country office and key stakehold-ers understand the ADR objectives, method-ology and process.

The EO Task Manager will accompany the TeamLeader on the mission.

Inception report: An inception report will beprepared by the evaluation Team Leader. Thiswill include the evaluation design and plan,background to the evaluation, key evaluationquestions, detailed method, information sources,instruments and tools for data collection andanalysis, and the format for reporting.

PHASE 2: CONDUCTING ADR ANDDRAFTING EVALUATION REPORT

Main ADR mission: The mission involves a three- week country visit by an independentevaluation team (Team Leader, Team Specialist

109. The Scoping Mission and inception report are described in Section 5 on the evaluation process.



and National Consultant), and will focus on datacollection and validation. An important part ofthis process will be an Entry Workshop (possiblymore than one) where the ADR objectives,methods and process will be explained tostakeholders. During the Scoping Mission, the number of projects and programmes to bevisited will be identified. The team will visitsignificant project/field sites as identified duringthe scoping mission.

Analysis and reporting: The informationcollected will be analysed in the draft ADRreport by the evaluation team within three weeksafter the departure of the team from the country.

Quality assurance: Prior to the submission ofthe draft report to the country office and theRegional Bureau for Africa, the draft ADRreport will be reviewed by two external develop-ment professionals familiar with the Ugandacontext and by select EO staff. The report will beappropriately revised by the Team Leader afterthe review process.

Review by key stakeholders: The draft will besubject to factual corrections and views oninterpretation by key clients (including UNDPUganda, the Regional Bureau for Africa andgovernment). The EO will prepare an audit trailto show how these comments were taken intoaccount. The Team Leader, in close cooperationwith the EO Task Manager, shall finalize theADR report based on these final reviews.

Stakeholder meeting: A meeting with keynational stakeholders will be organized to presentthe results of the evaluation and examine waysforward in Uganda. The main purpose of themeeting is to facilitate greater buy- in by nationalstakeholders in taking the lessons andrecommendations from the report forward and tostrengthen the national ownership of develop-ment process and the necessary accountability ofUNDP interventions at the country level. It maybe necessary to incorporate some significant

comments into the final evaluation report (by theevaluation Team Leader).

PHASE 3: FOLLOW- UP

Management response: The UNDP AssociateAdministrator will request relevant units (in thecase of an ADR, usually the relevant countryoffice and Regional Bureau) to jointly prepare amanagement response to the ADR. As the unitexercising oversight, the Regional Bureau will beresponsible for monitoring and overseeing theimplementation of follow- up actions in theEvaluation Resource Centre.

Communication: The ADR report and brief willbe widely distributed in both hard and electronicversions. The evaluation report will be madeavailable to the UNDP Executive Board by thetime of approving a new country programmedocument. It will be widely distributed inUganda and at UNDP Headquarters, and copieswill be sent to evaluation units of other interna-tional organizations, as well as to evaluationsocieties and research institutions in the region.Furthermore, the evaluation report and themanagement response will be published on theUNDP Web site.110

The time- frame and responsibilities for theevaluation process are tentatively as shown inTable 1A.

6. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

UNDP

The UNDP EO Task Manager will manage theevaluation and ensure coordination and liaisonwith the Regional Bureau for Africa, otherconcerned units at headquarters level and at theUganda country office and subregional office.The EO will also contract a Research Assistantto facilitate the initial desk review and aProgramme Assistant to support logistical andadministrative matters. The EO will meet allcosts directly related to the conduct of the ADR.These will include costs related to participationof the Team Leader, international and national

110. See www.undp.org/eo/.



consultants, as well as the preliminary researchand the issuance of the final ADR report. TheEO will also cover costs of any stakeholderworkshops as part of the evaluation.

THE EVALUATION TEAM

The team will be constituted of:

� Consultant Team Leader, with overallresponsibility for providing guidance andleadership, and for coordinating the draft andfinal report;

� Consultant Team Specialist, who will provideexpertise in the core subject area(s) of theevaluation and be responsible for drafting keyparts of the report;

� National Consultant, who will undertakedata collection and analyses at the countrylevel, provide expertise in the core subjectarea(s) of the evaluation and support thework of the missions; and

� Other members as appropriate.

The Team Leader must have a demonstratedcapacity in strategic thinking, policy advice andthe evaluation of complex programmes in thefield. All team members should have in- depthknowledge of development issues in Uganda andthe region.

The evaluation team will be supported by aResearch Assistant based in the New York EO.The EO Task Manager will support the team indesigning the evaluation, participate in thescoping mission and provide ongoing feedbackfor quality assurance during the preparation ofthe inception and final reports. Depending onthe needs, the EO Task Manager may participatein the main mission.

The evaluation team will orient its work byUnited Nations Evaluation Group norms andstandards for evaluation and will adhere to theethical Code of Conduct.111

111. United Nations Evaluation Group, ‘Norms for Evaluation in the UN System’ and ‘Standards for Evaluation in the UNSystem’, April 2005.

Table 1A. Evaluation activities and time-frame

Activity Estimated date

Collection and mapping of documentation by the Research Assistant February

Desk review by the evaluation team February and March

Scoping mission to Kampala February

Inception report and full ADR Terms of Reference February

Main ADR mission to Uganda April

Submission of first draft report May

Comments from EO and Advisory Panel June

Submission of second draft report June

Factual corrections from country office, Regional Bureau and government June- July

Stakeholder workshop July

Issuance of final report August



UNDP UGANDA

The Uganda country office will take a lead role inorganizing dialogue and stakeholder meetings onthe findings and recommendations, support theevaluation team in liaising with key partners andmake available to the team all necessary informa-tion regarding UNDP activities in the country.The office will also be requested to provideadditional logistics support to the evaluationteam as required. The country office willcontribute in- kind support (e.g., office space forthe evaluation team), but the EO will cover localtransportation costs.

7. EXPECTED OUTPUTS

The expected outputs from the evaluation team are:

� An inception report (maximum 20 pages);

� A comprehensive final report on the UgandaAssessment of Development Results(maximum 50 pages plus annexes);

� A two- page evaluation brief; and

� A presentation for the stakeholder workshop.

The final report of the ADR to be produced by theevaluation team will follow the following format:

� Chapter 1: Introduction;

� Chapter 2: National context;

� Chapter 3: The UN and UNDP in the country;

� Chapter 4: UNDP contribution to nationaldevelopment results;

� Chapter 5: Cross- cutting issues;

� Chapter 6: Strategic positioning of theUNDP country programme; and

� Chapter 7: Conclusions, lessons and recommendations.

Detailed outlines for the inception report, mainADR report and evaluation brief will be providedto the evaluation team by the Task Manager.

The drafts and final version of the ADR reportwill be provided in English.



A N N E X 2 . M D G A N D D O N O R D I S B U R S E M E N T S T A T I S T I C S 8 5

Annex 2

MDG AND DONOR DISBURSEMENT STATISTICS

Table 2A. Uganda MDG targets and progress

Goals/targets Indicator Current status

Year Will thegoal/target be met?

State or national support

Extreme poverty Proportion of population living below$1 per person per day

31.0% 2005–2006 Probably Strong

Poverty gap ration (incidence x depth) 8.7% 2005–2006

Hunger Prevalence of underweight children 20.4% 2006 Potentially Fair

Universalprimaryeducation

Net enrolment in primary school 84.0% 2006 Probably Strong

Literacy rate (15–24 years old) 84.0% 2005–2006

Ratio of literate females to males 0.73 2005–2006

Gender equityand womenempowerment

Ratio of literate women to men (15–24years old)

0.92 ... Probably Strong

Ratio of boys to girls in primary schools 0.99 2005–2006

Ratio of boys to girls in secondaryschools

0.97 2005–2006

Ratio of boys to girls in tertiary institutions

0.84 2005–2006

Share of women in wage employmentin the non-agricultural sector

28.9 2005–2006

Proportion of seats held by women in Parliament

30% 2006–2011

Infant mortality Under-five mortality ratio 137 per1,000 livebirths

2007 Unlikely Fair

Infant mortality rate 76 per1,000 livebirths

2007

Proportion of 1-year-old childrenimmunized against measles

59.4 2004

Maternal health Maternal mortality ratio 435 2007 Unlikely 2007

Proportion of births attended to byskilled health personnel

41% 2006


A N N E X 2 . M D G A N D D O N O R D I S B U R S E M E N T S T A T I S T I C S8 6

Table 2A (cont-d). Uganda MDG targets and progress

Goals/targets Indicator Current status

Year Will thegoal/target be met?

State or national support

HIV/AIDS,malaria andother diseases

HIV prevalence among pregnantwomen

6.4 2004–2005 HIV/AIDSreductionalreadyachived;malaria andothers –potentially

Strong forHIV/AIDS;fair forcontra-ceptiveuses

Access to contraceptives 24% 2005–2006

Condom use at last high-risk sex ... ...

Environmentalsustainability

Degradation of natural resources ... ... Potentially Fair

Access to safedrinking water

Access to improved water sources 67% 2006 Probably Strong

Global partnership

Official development assistance,market access, debt sustainability

... ... Probably Strong

Source: MFPED (2005, 2007), UNDP (2004, 2005) and UBOS (2005, 2006).

Source: Aid Liaison Department, MFPEDNote: The disbursements for 2007–2008 are based on the data available in June 2008.

Table 2B. Summary of donor disbursements by sector, 2005–2006 to 20072008

Sector 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008

Disbursements (US$ Millions)

Share (%) Disbursements (US$ Millions)

Share (%) Disbursements (US$ Millions)

Share (%)

Security - - - - - -

Works and transport 30.9 4.8 104.7 8.5 46.7 10.1

Agriculture 40.4 6.3 61.1 5.0 37.7 8.2

Education 46.5 7.2 24.6 2.0 18.3 4.0

Health 155.6 24.3 155.8 12.7 17.3 3.7

Water and environment 6.4 1.0 24.2 2.0 34.3 7.4

Justice, law and order 1.1 0.2 3.7 0.3 10.7 2.3

Accountability 40.3 6.3 45.4 3.7 12.2 2.6

Tourism, trade and industry 2.8 0.4 11.9 1.0 4.7 1.0

Information, communication and technology

- - - - - -

Energy and mineral development 11.9 1.9 186.4 15.2 12.1 2.6

Lands, housing and urbandevelopment

35.6 5.6 49.0 4.0 48.3 10.5

Social development 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 - -

Public administration 15.2 2.4 12.9 1.1 0.5 0.1

Public sector management 40.7 6.3 40.9 3.3 24.7 5.3

Legislature 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Interest payments due 212.7 33.2 504.8 41.2 194.5 42.1

Total 641.1 100.0 1225.5 100.0 462.1 100.0


A N N E X 2 . M D G A N D D O N O R D I S B U R S E M E N T S T A T I S T I C S 8 7

Table 2C. Disbursements by donor, 2003–2004 to 2007–2008, excluding HIPC saving (US$ millions)

Donor 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008

African Development Foundation 65.81 23.61 78.57 87.43 96.36

Arab Bank for Economic Development inAfrica (BADEA)

0.21 1.74 0.00 3.14 0.00

East African Development Bank 3.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

European Union 122.88 132.03 82.55 109.17 74.57

European Investment Bank 41.07 5.55 0.00 15.63 0.00

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

0.00 0.10 0.00 1.42 0.12

IDA 292.06 301.73 100.36 559.9 64.62

International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment

4.73 6.34 6.45 8.02 6.59

International Monetary Fund 5.84 6.00 2.89 0.00 0.00

NDF 26.51 7.99 0.00 5.63 0.00

UNDP 6.48 5.25 8.00 9.59 0.9

World Food Programme 50.00 62.9 8.18 0.00 0.00

Global Environment Facility 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.79 1.37

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

1.24 1.81 0.57 0.00 0.00

UNICEF 18.30 9.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

United Nations Population Fund 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.97 0.00

African Capacity Building Foundation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosisand Malaria

17.5 20.6 41.2 13.2 2.57

World Health Organization 6.10 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Austria 3.33 3.31 6.00 7.05 5.60

Belgium 1.58 1.73 7.30 6.42 2.81

Canada 1.98 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.05

China 4.86 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00

Denmark 39.84 26.27 11.32 34.27 33.05

France 5.55 9.14 0.63 1.80 2.14

Germany 23.58 39.01 37.24 38.66 2.58

Ireland 51.64 45.23 21.19 47.18 23.48

Italy 12.26 8.39 7.62 1.33 0.00

Japan 6.82 4.78 2.50 5.44 0.00

South Korea 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Netherlands 60.69 47.00 23.53 21.38 42.6

Norway 20.31 24.53 14.01 26.45 25.8

Spain 5.08 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sweden 33.39 37.47 0.80 17.66 6.05

United Kingdom 108.74 83.92 78.24 85.74 71.46

United States of America 24.23 45.55 100.01 117.05 0.00

Total 1,069.73 973.47 641.39 1,225.47 462.08

Source: Aid Liaison Department, MFPED



A N N E X 3 . P R O G R A M M E S U N D E R E A C H P R A C T I C E A R E A 8 9

Annex 3

PROGRAMMES UNDER EACH PRACTICE AREA

Table 3A. Poverty reduction and environment

Area ProgrammeNumber

Name Time-frame Amount(US$)

Objective Mode

Income Generating andSustainable Livelihoods

1 Strengthening District Promotion Centres 2001–2005 1,800,000 Promotion of incomegeneration and sustainablelivelihoods

NEX

Same 2 MSE Policy and Micro Finance 2001–2005 600,000 Same NEX

Strengthening Small andMedium Enterprises inUganda

3 Enterprise Uganda 2001–2005 1,000,000 Promotion of small andmedium enterprises inUganda

NEX

4 Same 2001–2005 450,000

Same 5 Enterprise Uganda 2001–2005 530,000 Business linkages NEX

Income Generating andSustainable livelihoods

6 Promotion of NARIC III Upland Rice 2004–2007 465,622 Promotion of incomegeneration and sustainablelivelihoods

NEX

Same 7 West Nile Poverty Initiatives 2003–2005 264,190 Same NEX

Private-SectorDevelopment

8 Management Support to Private-SectorDevelopment

2006–2009 N/A Local poverty initiatives,including micro-finance

NEX


9 Trade Capacity Enhancement 2007–2009 1,000,000 Local poverty initiativesintegrated into nationalstrategies for povertyreduction

NEX


10 (Ext. no. 1)

Business Development Services Lira 2006–2009 351,648 Same NEX

Same 11 Same – Mbale 2006–2009 386,096 Same NEX

Same 12 Same – Kabarole 2006–2009 370,495 Same NEX

Same 13 Same – Ankole 2006–2009 365,010 Same NEX


14 Busia Support to Micro-FinanceInstitutions

2006–2009 344,236 Same NEX

Same 15 Same – Karamoja 2006–2009 337,722 Same NEX

Same 16 Same – Nebbi 2006–2009 331,951 Same NEX

Same 17 Same – Kigezi 2006–2009 333,123 Same NEX

Same 18 Same – Teso 2006–2009 337,219 Same NEX

Same 19 Same – Acholi 2006–2009 350,981 Same NEX

Same 20 Same – Masaka 2006–2009 341,935 Same NEX

Same 21 Strengthening Small and MediumEnterprises in Uganda

2006–2009 1,193,922 Same NEX

EnvironmentalMainstreaming andIntegration in DistrictDevelopment Plan

22 Support to Kapchorwa District LocalGovernment

2007–2011 211,771 Sustainable management of environment, naturalresources, human settle-ments and urbanizationincorporated into PEAP, DDPsand the national budget

NEX

Integration ofEnvironmental Issues intonational Planning systems

23 Partnership Initiative (SAICM) 2007–2009 250,000 Same NEX

Forest BiodiversityConservation

24 Full Albertine Rift 2007–2011 3,395,000 Enhanced community andcivil society participation inprogrammes seeking toreverse biodiversity loss anddegradation of naturalresources

NEX

Wetland Biodiversityconservation

25 Support to RAMASAR Sites 2007–2009 246,983 Same NEX


A N N E X 3 . P R O G R A M M E S U N D E R E A C H P R A C T I C E A R E A9 0

Table 3A (cont-d). Poverty reduction and environment



Objective Mode

Wetland Biodiversityconservation

25 Support to RAMASAR Sites 2007–2009 246,983 Same NEX

Integration ofEnvironment intoNational Local PlanningSystem. Integration ofEnvironment intoNational and LocalPlanning System

26 Developing National Slum Upgrading 2006–2009 366,311 Sustainable management ofenvironment, naturalresources, human settle-ments and urbanizationincorporated into PEAP,DDPs and the nationalbudget

NEX

Implementation ofNatural ResourcesManagement Practices

27 Promotion of Sustainable Charcoal 2006–2009 354,533 Improved conservation andaccess to sustainable energytechnologies

NEX

Provision of Access to Energy for Productive Uses

28 Energy Access for Production Uses 2007–2008 150,000 Improved conservation andaccess to sustainable energytechnologies

NEX

Wetland BiodiversityConservation in Cross Border

29 COBWEB 2009–2011 800,000 Enhanced community andcivil society participation inprogrammes seeking toreverse biodiversity loss anddegradation of naturalresources

NEX


A N N E X 3 . P R O G R A M M E S U N D E R E A C H P R A C T I C E A R E A 9 1

Table 3B. Governance



Objective Mode

Democratization 1 Support to Parliament 2001–2005 225,000 Capacity of Parliamentstrengthened

NEX

Increased Efficiency andAccountability in thePublic Sector

2 Support to the Inspector General ofGovernment

2001–2005 185,000 Increase capacity of theInspector General ofGovernment

NEX

Same 3 Support to Public Procurement andDisposal of Public Assets Authority

2001–2005 N/A Increase capacity of thePublic Procurement andDisposal of Public AssetsAuthority

NEX

Decentralization 4 Support to PDM 2001–2005 555,500 Enhance capacity ofMinistry of LocalGovernment

NEX

Cross-cutting 5 Alliance of Mayors and Municipal Leaders on HIV/AIDS in Africa

2001–2005 53,600 HIV/AIDS initiative NEX

Poverty Eradication 6 Support to Economic DevelopmentPolicy and Research, MFPED

2001–2005 N/A Enhanced policy analysisand poverty monitoring

NEX

7 Support to DEI 2001–2005 150,000 Increased DEI capacity topromote ethics and integrity

NEX

Justice and HumanRights

8 Support to the Uganda Human RightsCommission

2001–2005 300,000 Enhanced capacity of theUganda Human RightsCommission

NEX

Same 9 Support to LCCs 2001–2005 373,350 N/A NEX

Equity 10 Support to Ministry of Gender, Labourand Social Development

2001–2005 210,000 Strengthened capacity ofMinistry of Gender, Labourand Social Development

NEX

Deepening DemocraticProcesses andStrengtheningDemocratic Institutions

11 Support to implementation of theAfrican Peer Review Mechanism

2006–2010 2,626,000 Democratic processesdeepened and democraticinstitutions strengthened

NEX

Same 12 Support to Parliament 2006–2009 838,947 Parliament is able to fullyexercise its oversight andlegislative role to safeguardthe democratic process

NEX

Same 13 Support to Participatory DevelopmentPlanning and Management

2006–2009 1,499,016 National plans and budgetsreflect agreed district andlower-level priorities

NEX

Transparency andAccountability

14 Country Programme Action Plan 2006–2009 2,654,702 Effective ownership andresponsibility over countryprogramme and accounta-bility of results

NEX

Same 15 Support to the Inspector General ofGovernment

2006–2009 416,592 Strong culture and practiceof transparency andaccountability in the public sector

NEX

Same 16 Support to Public Procurement andDisposal of Public Assets Authority

2006–2009 894,202 Same NEX

Same 17 Support to DEI 2006–2009 363,503 Same NEX

Justice and Human Rights

18 Support to Uganda Human RightsCommission

2006–2009 456,249 Government protects andpromotes human rightseffectively, in accordancewith national, regional,international law and treaties

NEX

Improved Impact ofAvailable Resources toFight HIV/AIDS

19 Support to Alliance of Mayors andMunicipal Leaders on HIV/AIDS in Africa

2006–2009 1,718,797 Strengthened capacity oflocal governments tocoordinate HIV/AIDSresponse in urban areas

BEX


A N N E X 3 . P R O G R A M M E S U N D E R E A C H P R A C T I C E A R E A9 2

Table 3C. Conflict prevention and recovery

ProgrammeNumber


Objective Mode

1 Transition to Recovery 2004–2008 2,606,930 People affected by conflict and other disasters(especially women, children and other vulnerablegroups) effectively participate in and benefit fromplanning, timely implementation, monitoring andevaluation of programme

DEX

2 Crisis Management and Recovery 2008–2011 4,483,071 Same NEX

3 Sexual Gender-Based Violence 2005–2009 839,685 Same DEX andNEX

4 Millennium Villages 2008–2013 480,058 Same NEX

5 Gulu sub-office 2006–2009 1,963,467 Peaceful environment conducive to the return;resettlement and reintegration of conflict affectedpopulations

DEX

6 Lira sub-office 2006–2009 2,039,766 Same DEX

7 Human Security/Secure environment 2005–2009 4,129,754 Conflict-affected internally displaced populationsresettled, returned and reintegrated

NEX

8 Karamoja 2007–2010 461,480 Same NEX

9 Mine Action 2005–2010 4,226,343 Rights and access to justice improved for internallydisplaced people; other conflict-affected peopleprotected; safety in and around internally displacedperson camps improved

DEX

10 Support to National Mine Action 2009–2009 138,889 Same NEX

11 Technical Advice and Assistance 2006–2008 631,784 Same DEX

12 M.A. Needs Assessment 2006–2008 560,237 Same DEX


A N N E X 4 . D O C U M E N T S C O N S U L T E D 9 3

Acholi Private Sector Development CompanyLimited, ‘Annual Report 2007’.

Government of Uganda, ‘Gender andProductivity Survey’, Office of the PrimeMinister, 2009.

Government of Uganda, ‘Statistical Abstract’,Bureau of Statistics, 2009.

Government of Uganda, ‘Comprehensive Plan:Landmine Victim Assistance, 2008–2012’,MoGLD and Office of the Prime Minister.

Government of Uganda, ‘Karamoja IntegratedDisarmament and DevelopmentProgramme. Creating Conditions forPromoting Human Security and Recoveryin Karamoja (2007/2008–2009/2010)’,Office of the Prime Minister, January 2007.

Government of Uganda, ‘State of UgandaPopulation Report in 2007’, Bureau of Statistics.

Government of Uganda, ‘Ugandan Demographicand Health Survey’, Bureau of Statistics, 2007.

Government of Uganda, ‘ParliamentaryStrategic Investment and Development Plan(Revised PSIDP) 2007–2011’, Planning and Development Coordination Office,Parliament of Uganda.

Government of Uganda, ‘Peace, Recovery andDevelopment Plan for Northern Uganda(PRDP) 2007–2010’, September 2007.

Government of Uganda, ‘PRDP for NorthernUganda 2007–2010’.

Government of Uganda, ‘DevelopmentCooperation Uganda, 2007–2008’.

Government of Uganda, ‘National State of theEnvironment Report for Uganda 2007’,National Environment ManagementAuthority, Kampala.

Government of Uganda, ‘Gender Inequality inUganda: The Status, Causes and Effects’,Discussion Paper 1, Ministry of Finance,Planning and Economic Development, 2006.

Government of Uganda, ‘Ugandan Demographicand Health Survey’, Bureau of Statistics, 2006.

Government of Uganda, ‘Uganda NationalHousehold Survey 2005–2006’, Bureau of Statistics.

Government of Uganda, ‘Costing theMillennium Development Goals: UgandaCountry Study’, Economic Policy ResearchCentre, April 2002.

Government of Uganda and UNDP, ‘Assessingthe Macro Economic Impact of HIV/AIDSin Uganda. Phase III Report – Analysis ofmacro economic impact,’ MFPED, UgandaAIDS Commission and UNDP, 2008.

Government of Uganda and UNDP, ‘Evaluationof Increased Public Sector EfficiencyTransparency and Accountability’, report for the Government of Uganda and UNDPGood Governance for Poverty EradicationProgramme, September 2005.

Government of Uganda and UNDP, ‘IncomeGeneration and Sustainable LivelihoodProgramme’, Outcome Evaluation FinalReport, June 2005.

ICRS, ‘Preliminary Analysis: Reporter Profilingfrom the Amnesty Commission of Uganda’,4 December 2008.

International Monetary Fund, ‘World EconomicOutlook 2008’.

International Monetary Fund, ‘PovertyReduction Strategy Paper: Uganda’s PovertyEradication Action Plan, Summary andMain Objectives’, 24 March 2000.

Moyo M., J.B. Ssebuliba and D. McAoy,‘UNDP Support to National Execution ofUNDP Programmes by the Aid LiaisonDepartment (ALD), from 1998–2008’,MFPED and UNDP, 2008.

Oxford Policy Management, ‘IndependentEvaluation of Uganda’s poverty EradicationAction Plan (PEAP)’, Final SynthesisReport, July 2008.

Annex 4

DOCUMENTS CONSULTED


A N N E X 4 . D O C U M E N T S C O N S U L T E D9 4

UNCDF, ‘Uganda: Final Evaluation ofUNCDF’s Local Development Programme’,Final Evaluation Report, October 2007.

UNDP, ‘Capacity Development Practice Note’,May 2008.

UNDP, ‘Evaluation of Transition to RecoveryProgramme’, 2008.

UNDP, ‘Human Development Index 2008’.

UNDP, ‘Income Generation and SustainableLivelihood Programme: OutcomeEvaluation Report’, June 2008.

UNDP, ‘Mid- Term Outcome Evaluation of theUNDP Poverty Reduction Programme2006–2007‘, Final Report, June 2008.

UNDP, ‘Supporting Capacity Development:The UNDP Approach’, Bureau forDevelopment Policy, Capacity DevelopmentGroup, New York, June 2008.

UNDP, ‘UNDP Support to National Executionof UNDP Programmes by Aid LiaisonDepartment from 1998–2008’, TerminalEvaluation Report, April 2008.

UNDP, ‘Fighting HIV/AIDS Epidemic inUganda, UNDP’s Response from 1986–2007’.

UNDP, ‘UNDP’s Crisis and Prevention andRecovery (CPR) Response in NorthernUganda 2008–2011: A Context Analysis’,Final Revised Document, 15 October 2007.

UNDP, ‘Evaluation of the Government ofUganda/UNDP Mine Action Programmeand Recommendations for FutureProgramme Action’, May 2007.

UNDP, ‘Creating a Secure Environment forRecovery and Development in NorthernUganda and North Eastern Uganda’, 23 April 2007.

UNDP, ‘Millennium Development Goals:Uganda’s Progress Report’, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report:Rediscovering Agriculture for HumanDevelopment’, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report2007–2008: HDI Going Beyond Income’.

UNDP, ‘Evaluation Policy’, Evaluation Office,New York, NY, 2006.

UNDP, ‘Country Programme Action Plan(2006–2010) for Uganda’, December 2005.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report: Linking Environment to HumanDevelopment – A Deliberate Choice’, 2005.

UNDP, ‘Assessment of Development Results:Key Elements of Methodology’, EvaluationOffice, New York, NY, 2002.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report:The Challenge of HIV/AIDS – Maintainingthe Momentum of Success’, 2002.

UNDP, ‘Second Country CooperationFramework (2001–2005)’, Project SupportDocument, Enterprise Uganda, April 2001.

UNDP, ‘Second Country CooperationFramework for Uganda (2001–2005)’,Programme Support Document, GoodGovernance for Poverty Eradication, 2001.

UNDP, ‘Second Country CooperationFramework for Uganda (2001–2005)’,Programme Support Document, PovertyAnalysis and Poverty Monitoring, July 2001.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report:The Challenge of Employment- Creation inUganda’, 2000.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report: Causes and Consequences of RuralPoverty’, 1998.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report:General Human Development Report’, 1997.

UNDP, ‘First Country Cooperation Frameworkfor Uganda (1997–2000)’.

UNDP, ‘Uganda Human Development Report:General Human Development Report’, 1996.

UNDP, ‘Guidelines for Direct Execution’.

UNDP Uganda, ‘Uganda ProgrammeOverview’, presentation.

UNDP, Alliance of Mayors and MunicipalLeaders on HIV/AIDS in Africa, and Joint United Nations Programme onHIV/AIDS, ‘Alliance of Mayors andMunicipal Leaders on HIV/AIDS in Africa Uganda Programme: StrengtheningHIV/AIDS Response in Urban LocalGovernments’. 2006.

UNDP and United Nations Population Fund,‘UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011.Accelerating Global Progress on HumanDevelopment’, DP/2007/43.


A N N E X 4 . D O C U M E N T S C O N S U L T E D 9 5

UNDP and UNCDF, ‘Review of Outcomes and Impact of the Local Access to JusticeComponent’, District DevelopmentProgramme II, Final Report, September 2005.

UNDP and United Nations Population Fund,‘Draft Country Programme Document forUganda (2006–2010)’, 5 May 2005.

UNDP and UNCDF, ‘Uganda DistrictDevelopment Project Pilot Phase II,UGA/01/C01, Main Report’, Mid- TermEvaluation, 2004.

UNDP and United Nations Population Fund,‘2nd Multi- Year Funding Framework,2004–2007’, 13 August 2003.

UNDP and United Nations Population Fund,‘Country Review Report for Uganda’, 4 August 2000.

United Nations Development Group,‘Returning to Uncertainty? AddressingVulnerabilities in Northern Uganda’, Uganda.

United Nations Evaluation Group, ‘Norms forEvaluation in the UN System’, April 2005.

United Nations Evaluation Group, ‘Standards forEvaluation in the UN System’, April 2005.

United Nations Uganda, ‘Joint UN Programmeof Support for AIDS in Uganda2007–2012’, Summary Document.

United Nations Uganda, ‘United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework ofUganda (UNDAF) 2006–2010’, 2005.

United Nations Uganda, ‘Common CountryAssessment for Uganda (2004)’.

United Nations Uganda, ‘Common CountryAssessment for Uganda (2000)’.

United Nations Uganda, ‘United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework(UNDAF) for Uganda 2001–2005’,24/10/01, 2000.

UNV, ‘United Nations Volunteers Support tothe Promotion of Human Rights Project inUganda‘, UGA/02/V01, Mid- Term ReviewReport, June 2005.

The World Bank, ‘Post- Conflict Land Policyand Administration Options – The Case ofNorthern Uganda’, Uganda, May 2009.

‘Poverty Reduction Scoping Mission Report’,February 2009.

‘Formulation of the 5-Year NationalDevelopment Plan. Progress Report’,December 2008–March 2009.

‘Democratic Governance: Mid- Term OutcomeEvaluation Report’, October 2008.

‘Pilot Business Linkage Programme’, TerminalEvaluation Report, July 2008.

‘Decentralization Policy Strategic Framework 2006’.

‘Joint Assistance Strategy for Republic ofUganda (2005–2009)’.

‘DDPIII – Pilot Strengthening LocalGovernments for Economic Development’.



A N N E X 5 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 9 7

UNDP NEW YORK

Bani, Gardner, Douglas, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy Director, Bureauof Development Policy

Lawrey- White, Janey, Evaluation Adviser,Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

Nkwain, Prosper, Bureau for Crisis Preventionand Recovery

Santi, Karin, Programme Adviser, HIV/AIDSUnit, Bureau of Development Policy

Seppo, Mia, Senior Programme Adviser,Regional Bureau for Africa

Stan, Deputy Director, Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery

UNDP UGANDA

Abal, Patrick, Programme Officer

Achan, Hellen Amuk, Ministry of Gender,Labour and Social Development/UNDP

Atuhairwe, Gloria

Ecat, Justine, Programme Officer, PovertyReduction Unit

Ibanda, Sam, Assistant Resident Representative,Governance Unit

Kakiva, Athman, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, Operations

Kwamia, Wilson, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Poverty Reduction Unit

Matunda, Alfred, Programme Assistant, Kitgum sub- office

Namyalo, Ceilia

Nicholas, Brunde, Programme Officer

Odoci, Charles Peter, Information ManagementSpecialist, Amnesty Commission, Kitgum

Oole, Eugene, District Planning Officer

Otto, Bruno, Programme Officer, Gulu sub- office

Sebatindira, Rose, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Crisis Prevention andRecovery Unit

Symmonds, Mary, Country Director

Theophane, Nikyema, Resident Representative

Walwasa, Regina, Programme Associate

Wandira, Augustine, M&E Officer

UN AGENCIES

Aiesi, Frances, UN Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs, Kitgum

Gordon, Mwesigye, Secretary to theCommission, Uganda Human Rights Commission

Kalweo, Jane, Institutional DevelopmentAdviser, Joint United Nations Programmeon HIV/AIDS Kampala

Kisembo, Agnes, United Nations PopulationFund, Kitgum

Landey, Deborah, Director, United NationsDevelopment Group

Malayah, Harper, Kampala, Joint UnitedNations Programme on HIV/AIDS

Malingo, Martin, World Food Programme, Kitgum

Ngemera, Daniel, UNICEF, Kitgum

Oeva, Alfred, UNICEF, Kitgum

Oullowange, Joseph, World Food Programme, Kitgum

Pilaya, Brenda C., Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Kitgum

Reichel, Laurence, UNCDF

Tenywa, Emanuel, World Health Organization, Kitgum

Wekwete, Kadmiel, Director, LocalDevelopment, UNCDF

Annex 5

LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED


A N N E X 5 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D9 8

GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA

Abel Rwendeire, Deputy Chairman, NationalPlanning Authority

Agaba Charity, Public Procurement andDisposal of Public Assets Authority

Agaba Edgar, Executive Director, PublicProcurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority

Baguma Sylva, Chairperson LC5, Kabale District

Balaba Swaibu, Deputy Chief AdministrativeOfficer, Kabale Local Government

Banaabe Insingoma Jame, Ministry of Energyand Minerals

Byakora Smith, Principle Inspectorate Officer

David Rider Smith, M&E Adviser, Office ofPrime Minister

Dhizaala Samson, Monitoring and EvaluationOfficer, National Planning Authority

Dyrbak Kamanga Jeus Peter, GovernanceAdviser, Department for International Development

Enyim Joseph, Ministry of Finance, Planningand Economic Development

Kaberuka Jane, Senior Principle InspectorateOfficer, Inspector- General of Government

Kakira Geoffrey, Manager, Training andCapacity Building Public Procurement andDisposal of Public Assets Authority

Kanyeihamba, Johnes, Assistant ChiefAdministrative Officer and Ag S/C ChiefBubare S/C, Kabale District

Kibuota Alex, Uganda Mine Action Centre

Matyama Fredrik, Assistant Commissioner,Infrastructure and Social Services, Ministryof Finance, Planning and Economic Development

Mumanyire Arthur, Ministry of Finance,Planning and Economic Development

Ndifuna Mathias, Principal Deputy Secretaryon Behalf Chief Administrative Officer,Bushenyi District Administration

Nduru Patricia, Human Rights Officer, UgandaHuman Rights Commission

Ntuhe Fred, Chairman, KPSPC Board,KPSPC, Kabale

Okum Dison (Hon.), MP and ChairpersonSocial Services Sector, Eighth Parliament of Uganda

Tom Matte, Permanent Secretary, Ministry ofLocal Government

Tumutegyereze Milton, Director, Training andCapacity Building, Public Procurement andDisposal of Public Assets Authority

Tumwesigye Gordon, Secretary to theCommission, Uganda Human Rights Commission.

Waiswa Bageya, Secretary to InspectorateInspector General of Government

DONOR AGENCIES

Ayaa Odoch Mariam, Danish Demining Group, Kitgum

Batte Senoga Edward, Macro- Economist,African Development Bank

Farber Paula, Arbeiter Samanter Bund

Francesca Olivia, Area Focal Person, UnitedStates Agency for InternationalDevelopment, SPRING, Kitgum

Hashimoto Nozomi, Adviser EconomicCooperation Section/Researcher, Embassyof Japan

Iga Daniel, Growth and Governance Adviser,Irish Aid

Kasper Dalsten, The World Bank

Martinensi Johnson, Country Director, ArbeiterSamanter Bund

Meya Saison Rosettee, Operations Officer,Human Rights and Gender, European Union

Nakajjo Alex, Operations Officer, Trade andRegional Integration, European Union

PRIVATE SECTOR, NGOs AND CSOs

Abeve Patrick, Project Coordinator, NorwegianRefugee Council, Information Counselingand Legal Assistance

Acol William, Member, Lira NGO Forum,Corruption Brake Lira


A N N E X 5 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 9 9

Angom Florence, Member, Lira NGO Forum,UPENDO Vulnerable Women

Arinaitwe Rose, Mugeme Kyabugimbo WomenGroup, Ankole PSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi

Atim Okello Harriet, Legal Officer, ICLA, Kitgum

Ayebare Joseline, Administrative officer,Bushenyi Ankole PSPC

Bainebyabo Adrian, Chief Executive Officer,Kigezi PSPC

Birungi George, Finance Officer, Alliance ofMayors and Municipal Leaders onHIV/AIDS in Africa

Daniel Othieno, Office of the Prime Minister, Lira

Gederi Lawrence, Business DevelopmentManager, Mid North PSPC

Gerald Seguya, Project Officer, Alliance ofMayors and Municipal Leaders onHIV/AIDS in Africa

Kagonyera Bernard, Wine Processor, AnkolePSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi

Kamugisha Ezra, Finance Officer, BushenyiAnkole PSPC

Katusime Joyce, Business DevelopmentAssistant, Bushenyi Ankole PSPC

Kawanguzi Patrick, Micro Finance Manager,Mid North PSPC

Lakwonyero Susan, APSEDEC, Kitgum

Levu Patrick, Field Supervisor, Restoration ofAgriculture Livelihood RAMAC, Lira

Luboobi Christopher, InstitutionalDevelopment Officer, Alliance of Mayorsand Municipal Leaders on HIV/AIDS in Africa

Mubanzi Kolovio, Ankole PSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi

Mugisha Elly, Konisha Cooperative Society and Honey Producers, Ankole PSPCBeneficiary, Bushenyi

Mutabazi Denis, Managing Director, Alphis Limited, Ankole PSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi

Mutabazi Nossif, Chairperson Fish FarmersGroup, Ankole PSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi

Najuka Jennifer, Nyaru Women’s Group Microfinance, Ankole PSPCBeneficiary, Bushenyi

Ndamira John, Bushenyi Banana and PlantainOrganization Conserve and Promote,Ankole PSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi

Nyanga Steven, Member, Lira NGO Forum,Youth Action for Future Leaders

Ocen Victor, Member, Lira NGO Forum,African Youth Initiative Network

Ochanan Charles, Programme Officer, CPAR, Kitgum

Odur Jonathan, Member, Lira NGO Forum,Apac Peace and Development

Ogaba Raymond, Finance Officer, CPAR, Kampala

Ogweng Grace Geoffrey, Project Office, Lira NGO Forum

Omara James, Member, Lira NGO Forum,UPENDO Vulnerable women

Onama Mathias, Finance Controller, CanadianPhysicians for Aid and Relief

Ongom Chris, Member, Lira NGO Forum,African Youth Initiative Network

Ongom Peter, Member Lira NGO Forum, LiraRural Women Initiative

Opio Charles, Finance and Administration,Mid North PSPC

Opobo Opoyo Patric, Finance andAdministrative Manager, APSEDEC, Kitgum

Otim Peter, Member, Lira NGO Forum,Uganda Christian Development Agency

Tasenga Nelson, APSEDEC, Kitgum

Tumusiime John, Chairperson, District Civil Society Network, Bushenyi AnkolePSPC Beneficiary

Tumwine Aberi, Logistics Officer, BushenyiAnkole PSPC

Twiine Lydia, Twimpi Saccos Chairperson, Farmers Ankole PSPCBeneficiary, Bushenyi

Twino Monica, Banana Wine Making Group,Ankole PSPC Beneficiary, Bushenyi


A N N E X 5 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 0 0

PARTICIPANTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERMEETING HELD ON 17 JULY 2009

Adoli Ogwok Alfred, Amotolar District Chairman

Agripinner Nandhego, FOWODE

Akangasira Gideon, Parliament

Alako Teddy, MWE

Alinga D.C., Karamoja

Andrew Martin, UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Athman Kakiva, UNDP

Baku R.O., Inspectorate of Government

Barbara Nakanga, International Union forConservation of Nature

Bategeka L., EPRC

Benon Byamugisha, Ministry of Agriculture,Animal Industry and Fisheries

Brou Djekou, UNDP

C.N. Mukiza, Uganda Bureau of Statistics

Charles Magala, Danish Embassy

Dr. Charles Mukama, Ministry of Agriculture,Animal Industry and Fisheries

Charles Ocici, Enterprise Uganda

Daniel Omodo- Mcmondo, UNDP

David Okalebo Onyoin, Teso Private Sector

David Rider Smith, Office of the PrimeMinister, Uganda Bureau of Statistics

Ekongot J.R, Katakwi Chairman

Emmanuel Hatanga, UNDP

Gladys Nalukenge, Reach the Child Uganda

Gloria Atuheirwe, UNDP

Gloria Mugambe, Sweden

H.G.K Nyakoojo, MTTI

Henry Kalule, United Nations Population Fund

Hon. Steven Ongaria, Electoral Commission

James Mwai, SNV Uganda

Jamillah Diallo Sow, UNDP

Jebbeh Forster, United Nations DevelopmentFund for Women

Jenaro P. Onegi, West Nile Poverty Initiatives

Jennifer Bukokhe, UNCDF

Jens Peter Dyrbak, Department forInternational Development

Jimmy Loma, Karamoja

John M. Behangaana, UAAU

Dr. John Mugisa, Alliance of Mayors andMunicipal Leaders on HIV/AIDS in Africa

Joris Beckers, UNDP

Dr. Juliet Bataringaya, World Health Organization

Julius Ochen, Amuru District Chairman

Julius P. Moto, Mid North PSPC

Kabagambe Amanda, MOIAS

Kamanda Patrick, National Roads Authority

Kasande Paul Drake, Private Sector Kabarole

Kauta Kenneth, DEI

Khauka Andrew, Uganda Law Reform Commission

Laz Ocira, Office of the Prime Minister

Lochap Peter Ken, District Chairman

M. Masbayi, International Labour Organization

Manano Maurice Opar, DEI

Margaret Ssemukasa, CPSDL Masaka

Mary Odongo, Enterprise Uganda

Mawelle Francis, MFPED

Moses Tumusiime, UNV/UNDP

Mubarak Mabaya, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development

Mubiru J.W., Uganda Bureau of Statistics

Muhumuza Juvenal, MFPED

Mujede John, Ministry of Local Government

Munira Ali, ULGA

N. Opio Bunga, Chairman Apac district

Nelson Kyagera, EPSEDEC MBALE

Norah N.K Wandera, MOIAS

Nuwagaba Cleophas, National EnvironmentManagement Authority


A N N E X 5 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 0 1

Nyanzi Sula, African Peer Review Mechanism Unit

Prosie Kikabi, Uganda Investment Authority

Regina A. Walwasa, UNDP

Rhona Walusimbi, United States Agency forInternational Development

Richard Mubiru, UEPB

Dr. Rose Azuba M., MUK, ADR Team

Ross Smith, UNICEF

Ruth Ssekindi, Uganda Human Rights Commission

Rwendeire A.J., National Planning Authority

S.A.K. Magezi, Meteorology

Sarah K. Kabasinguzi, PSFU

Solome Mukisa, UCOBAC

Susan Frazer, Irish Aid/Embassy of Ireland

Tae Takita, Embassy of Japan

Tasenza Nelson, APSEDEC Kitgum

Teddy Namfua, United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees

Twesiime Fred, MFPED

Twinomuhangi Deo, Ankole PSPC

Wilson Kwamya, UNDP


HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATIefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FORsustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneAN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWNNATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINATIefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FORsustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneHUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATI

United Nations Development ProgrammeEvaluation OfficeOne United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USATel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo

Sales #: E.09.III.B.33 ISBN: 978-92-1-126268-1


ASSESSMEN

T OF DEVELOPM

ENT RESU

LTSU

GAN

DA

f_UgandaADR_coverFl:Layout 1 9/1/09 3:11 PM Page 1