Download 4. challenges faced by civil society

WORKING WITH COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
AND CIVIL SOCIETY: THE CASE OF UGANDA
A Presentation at the European Forum on Rural
Development Co-operation
4th to 6th September, 2002.
Montpellier, France
By Kevin Teopista Akoyi Makokha (Mrs.)
Country Representative
Vredeseilanden-Coopibo Uganda
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 3
1.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5
1.1
THE UGANDAN CONTEXT...................................................................................... 5
1.1.1 The economic environment ................................................................................. 5
1.1.2 Administrative environment ................................................................................ 6
1.1.3 Political environment .......................................................................................... 6
1.1.4 Socio-cultural environment ................................................................................. 7
1.1.5 Human development ............................................................................................ 8
1.1.4 Natural environment ........................................................................................... 8
1.1.5 The debt burden .................................................................................................. 8
2.1
THE HISTORY OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS IN UGANDA .......................... 10
2.1.1 Civil society under the colonial rule ................................................................. 10
2.1.2 Post independence civil society ......................................................................... 11
2.1.3 CSOs in the NRM period ................................................................................... 12
2.1.4 The current structural outlay of civil society in Uganda .................................. 13
3. THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN POVERTY REDUCTION ......................... 14
3.1 PROGRAMME DESIGN ................................................................................................ 14
3.2 PLANNING ................................................................................................................. 15
3.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................... 17
3.5 THE ROLE OF CSOS IN POLICY DIALOGUE ................................................................ 18
3.6 CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TRAINING AND PARTNERSHIPS ................................ 19
3.7 THE ROLE OF CSOS IN CIVIC EDUCATION ................................................................. 20
4.
CHALLENGES FACED BY CIVIL SOCIETY ............................................... 20
4.1 ORGANISATIONAL CHALLENGES ............................................................................... 21
4.1.1
Governance ................................................................................................ 21
4.1.2
Management ............................................................................................... 21
4.1.3
Financial resources .................................................................................... 22
4.1.4
Human resources ....................................................................................... 22
4.1.5
Service delivery .......................................................................................... 22
4.1.6
Sustainability .............................................................................................. 23
4.2 INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Intra CSO (CSO-CSO) relationships ................................................................ 23
4.2.2 CSO-government relationships ......................................................................... 24
4.2.3 CSO-development partners (donor) relationships ............................................ 24
4.2.4 CSO-private sector relationship ....................................................................... 25
5. STRATEGIES/APPROACHES TO STRENGTHEN CIVIL SOCIETY .............. 25
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 27
2
ABBREVIATIONS
ACCU
-
Anti Corruption Coalition of Uganda
AIDS
-
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
BAI
-
The Budget Advocacy Initiative
CBOs
-
Community Based Organisations
CSOs
-
Civil Society Organisations
CDRN
-
Community Development Resource Network
DHSP
-
District Health Support Programme
ESIP
-
Education Strategic Investment Plan
FBOs
-
Faith Based Organisations
FIDA-U
-
Federation of Uganda Women Lawyers
FRA
-
Food Rights Alliance
GDP
-
Gross Domestic Product
GOU
-
Government of Uganda
HIV
-
Human Immune Deficiency Virus
HIPC
-
Highly Indebted Poor Country
HSSP
-
Health Sector Strategic Plan
IMF
-
International Monetary Fund
INGOs
-
International Non Governmental Organisations
LC
-
Local Council
LNGOs
-
Local Non Governmental Organisations
MIS
-
Management Information System
MTEF
-
Medium Term Expenditure Framework
NAWOU
-
National Association of Women Organisations in Uganda
NECDP
-
Nutrition and Early Childhood Development Project
NEM Group -
NGO Election Monitoring Group
NGOs
Non Governmental Organisations
-
3
NRM
-
National Resistance Movement
PAF
-
Poverty Action Fund
PAP
-
Poverty Alleviation Project
PEAP
-
Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PMA
PPAs
-
Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture
Priority Programme Areas
PRSP
-
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RCs
-
Resistance Councils
SAPs
-
Structural Adjustment Policies
SAPRI
-
Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative
SCD
-
Save the Children Denmark
SIGs
-
Special Interest Groups
SNV
-
The Netherlands Development Organisations
SWIPs
-
Sector Wide Investment Plans
UAFU
-
Uganda African Farmers Union
UDN
-
Uganda Debt Network
ULA
-
Uganda Land Alliance
UJCC
-
Uganda Joint Christian Council
UNC
-
Uganda National Congress
UNFFE
-
Uganda National Farmers Federation
UPE
-
Universal Primary Education
UPPAP
-
Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Programme
4
WORKING WITH COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS AND CIVIL
SOCIETY: THE CASE OF UGANDA
A Presentation at the European Forum on Rural Development Co-operation
4th to 6th September, 2002.
Montpellier, France
By Kevin Teopista Akoyi Makokha (Mrs.)
Country Representative
Vredeseilanden-Coopibo Uganda
The paper mainly comes from eleven years’ experience of working with farmers’
groups and organisations in Eastern, Central and Northern Uganda, and Central,
Eastern and South Eastern Kenya. One of the years as a Government Extension
worker in Uganda and the rest, as an NGO programme staff. Focus of the paper
however, is on Uganda.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Ugandan Context
In order to appreciate the gains and challenges in working with community
organisations in Uganda, and seek meaningful ways of supporting their
contribution to poverty reduction, it is important to understand context.
1.1.1 The economic environment
For the last 16 years the Government of Uganda (GOU) has been
implementing the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) aggressively,
and has been commended for achieving a real GDP growth rate of 6.0% on
average. The major objective has been to re-gain and maintain macroeconomic stability and promote growth. Although this impressive growth
rate was achieved in the first decade of SAP implementation, Uganda has for
the last three years, failed to meet the targeted 7% GDP growth rate. Key
SAP policies which have affected the rural poor most include: liberalisation
of prices and markets, privatisation and civil service reform. The private
sector which is expected to champion the private led growth in the economy,
5
is still very weak. The rolling back of the state also meant the near collapse
of the many services previously provided by Government in the field of
agriculture, health, water and sanitation and education, etc. The end result is
high prevalence of poverty, especially in the rural areas, and unemployment.
1.1.2 Administrative environment
In line with the objective of enhancing participation of all Ugandans in
pursuing the above choice of economic policies, the government of Uganda
made institutional reforms to ensure a decentralised arrangement since
1997. According to the Local Government Act, 1997, decentralisation has the
prime objective of devolving powers or authority to plan, make decisions and
manage services from the central or higher levels to the districts or lower
levels of Government. This means that although local governments are not
completely autonomous, they are independent in their areas of responsibility
and are actually sub-national levels of Government as opposed to mere
subordinate administrative units in the case of de-concentration. Uganda is
one of the countries which has implemented both political and fiscal
decentralisation however, management capacity remains very limited at local
Government levels and this poses a big challenge to rural development.
1.1.3 Political environment
The National Resistance Movement (NRM) Government, which took power in
1986, is applying the movement political system under which political party
activities are restricted to national levels only, in form of functioning party
headquarters.
The movement system of Government is enshrined in the
national constitution, promulgated in 1995 and was confirmed by the people
of Uganda in a June 2000 referendum as the political system they wish to
have.
Under the movement system, leaders are elected as individuals on their own
merit. Representation in the Local Council (LC) system, which is the political
structure of the local government, is through electoral colleges, starting
from the village to the district levels. 30% of these seats are reserved for
women and 10% for people with disabilities. Other Special Interested
Groups (SIGs) like the youth, the workers and the army are also represented
6
in parliament. Although political parties are not active, many groups are
agitating for a multiparty political system and are questioning the extent to
which the movement political system is democratic. Political analysts hope
that the on-going review of the national constitution may change the political
landscape in Uganda.
For the last sixteen years there has been civil war in the northern Uganda
and later in some parts of western Uganda. In addition, Uganda was drawn
into conflicts across two of its boarders, generating further strains on
internal peace. These have affected the development in these regions to a
certain extent and caused displacement of persons and loss of life and
property. The peace process in the Congo and a new partnership with the
Government of Sudan to end the war in Northern has made Ugandans more
hopeful however, the intensity of the war in Northern Uganda has been
severe in the recent past.
1.1.4 Socio-cultural environment
Although Uganda’s economic performance over the past decade has been
impressive and stable, there is widespread poverty, mainly in rural areas, with
35% of the population living below the poverty line. The gap between the rich
and the poor is increasingly widening. According to the Uganda Participatory
Poverty Assessment Programme (UPPAP) report, poverty is not only lack of
income but also a feeling of powerless, and is location and gender specific.
For example, poverty is more prevalent in the Northern and Eastern parts of
the country, and women are proportionately poorer than men. HIV/AIDS is
still prevalent with adverse effects on human and other national resources,
and household incomes. It has resulted into a big number of orphans
estimated at 2 million.
Uganda enjoys a rich cultural heritage stemming from the country’s ethnic
diversity. The 1995 Uganda constitution identifies 56 ethnic groups.
Although there has been Western and Asian cultural and technological
influence, Ugandans are bonded together in ethnic groups by common cultural
values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, rituals, language, food, dress, music and the
visual arts. These values are sometimes used positively to bring people
7
together and other times negatively
inequality.
to perpetuate gender inequity and
1.1.5 Human development
Uganda’s human development indicators are quite poor. There is high infant
mortality of 88/1000 live births, under five mortality rate of 152/1000 live
births and maternal mortality rate of 505/1000 live births (Background to
the budget, 2002/2003). According the Minister of state for water, only
40% of the population has access to safe water. The population is largely
characterised by high levels of illiteracy, presently, 38% on average and 52%
for women. The introduction of Universal Primary Education (UPE) has
resulted in increased primary school enrolment across the country but the
impact is a very long term one. Another nagging problem is that of
unemployment and underemployment, leading to low income and poverty among
the people.
1.1.4 Natural environment
Uganda has abundant natural resources, however, the natural resources are
under serious threat from degradation due to population pressure,
overgrazing, deforestation, siltation of water bodies, drying of wet lands and
poor agricultural practices. These environmental problems are exacerbated
by poverty, civil strife, wars, low literacy rate, uncoordinated policies and
poor enforcement of regulations. For a country experiencing high population,
with 70% of the people depending directly on its natural resources for their
livelihood, pressures on the environment is bound to scale upwards.
1.1.5 The debt burden
A bigger percentage of Uganda’s national budget (about 60%) is dependent on
external aid. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
are the biggest lenders to Government. They too have great influence on the
type of polices that are implemented by Government. They also seem to have
some influence over the policies of other bilateral donors.
Uganda’s outstanding debt stock stood at about US $ 3.8 billion in 2001.
Debt service costs are high, constituting 25.7% of the export earnings.
8
While the recent Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief
initiative of the World Bank and IMF resulted into some relief, which
ameliorated the situation slightly, the level of external debt still acts as an
important hindrance on economic development in Uganda.
Considering the above context factors, it is clear that poverty reduction will
take a concerted effort from all stakeholders and development actors, civil
society inclusive. The latter will play a particularly big role in applying critical
pressure that is required to realise high impact levels.
2.
CIVIL SOCIETY IN UGANDA
The many existing definitions of Civil Society all concur that these are
institutions that operate between the level of the state and the level of the
individual and household1. The term civil society has emerged to mean
associational life of a society that exists between the individual actions of
each person (the private realm) and the organisations and institutions
constituted by the state (the public realm). The various definitions,
according to Richard C. Crook (2001), share a common concern with the idea
of how societies resolves and mediate the relation between individual
interests and public ethics, the market and collective good. The more
physical and tangible part of civil society therefore is Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs). CSOs include students’ associations, private media,
churches, trade unions, diverse professional associations, farmer groups and
other producer groups, intellectuals, peasant associations, informal networks,
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations
(CBOs). For purposes of this paper, political parties are excluded from civil
society because they are aspiring for state power.
Development theory considers CSOs as enhancing democracy and
countervailing the power of the state, as being democratically well-organised
and as informal schools where cherished values of democracy and
organisation are passed on to the community. In Uganda, NGOs and the Faith
Based Organisations (FBOs) are the most active section of civil society and
most of them work in partnership with CBOs. For this presentation I will
1
VeCo Uganda, 2001; The Challenge of influencing policy change: The role of Civil Society in
Uganda
9
define NGOs as “self-governing, private, not for profit organisations that are
geared towards improving the quality of life of disadvantaged people”. While
NGOs, consider themselves to be CSOs, not all CSOs are NGOs, e.g. the
churches.
The CSOs are believed to have done a lot in contributing to poverty reduction
but as Julius Nyang’oro E. (1999) rightly notes, civil society is diverse space,
which includes “the good and beautiful, as well as “ the bad and ugly”. He
observes that the struggle for democratic development is not just one of
vertical conflict between a controlling state and civil society, but also one of
horizontal struggles within civil society itself for further democratisation.
In many countries in Africa, Uganda inclusive, there have been nasty
experiences where civil society groups have benefited from state political
repression, fundamentalism and other vices that limit the process of
democratisation. According to Susan Dicklitch (1998), many of the internal
problems facing indigenous CSOs are linked to their relative youth. There is
a lot of potential in CSO-inspired development and democratisation, but if
from the onset the agenda is not democratic, and new actors are accountable
to their membership and the wider community, then the democratic potential
may be significantly undermined. See the history below.
2.1
The History of Civil Society Organisations in Uganda
CSOs in Uganda date back to the colonial days when the Blacks and Indians
organised themselves to demand for better facilities and recognition from
the colonial Government. These organisations to a great extent however,
worked alongside the colonial Government to fight for their own rights and
further entrench colonialism. Later, in the 1940s some Ugandans (especially
the educated) formed their own organisations in form of co-operatives, trade
unions and church organisations to demand for fair treatment in trade, at the
work place and later in politics.
2.1.1 Civil society under the colonial rule
The development of Civil Society in Uganda was slow compared to Kenya and
Tanzania, mainly because of the different colonial experiences, according to
Karugire S.R. (1980). In Uganda, unlike her two neighbours, there were no
10
European Settlers, since their settlement had been limited by the structures
of local government maintained under the colonial administration. This meant
that there was no alien threat to Ugandans who retained their land and local
administration structures, most of which were dominated by Ugandans. This
created a high sense of contentment and hindered the growth and
development of social movements. Even though there were contentious issues
that required civil society mobilising, in effect, it never happened because of
the divide and rule system that was used by the colonial Government. An
attempt in 1940, by the Uganda African Farmers’ Union (UAFU) was
therefore quickly quelled by the colonial Government by arresting the
leaders.
In 1952, the UAFU attempted to form the first national party, the Uganda
National Congress (UNC) but this had a very short life span, mainly because
of its ethnic and religious origin and leadership (from Buganda and
Protestants). This was not well received in other parts of the country given
Buganda’s role in colonial expansion and the administration of the British
indirect rule. Worse still, the party, just like the Protectorate Government
thinking, reflected Protestant domination over the majority Catholic. All this
curtailed national mobilisation of civil society; hence the formation of
religious, tribal and ethnic based CSOs and Political groupings. These
divisions were further reinforced in the post-independence era hence
disintegrating any efforts aimed at challenging the state. Because of the
largely peasant agricultural based economy, the Trade Union Movement in
Uganda did not really mature and was swallowed up by the development of
political parties in the 1950s.
2.1.2 Post independence civil society
For more than twenty years after Uganda’s independence in 1962, civil
society mobilisation was greatly frustrated by the strong and dominating
leadership of the state under the governments of Milton Obote (1962 to 71)
and (1980-85) and Idi Amin Dada (1971-79). It was practically impossible to
organise, let alone influence policy making processes in the country in the
political chaos and economic mismanagement that followed. All people’s
pressure groups like women, trade unions and farmers’ associations were submerged by the state and the appointments of Chief Khadhi (head of the
11
Islam) and Archbishop of the Church of Uganda (head of the Protestant
Church) became highly politicised.
The abuse that went on un-abated by the state compelled a group of
militants, the National Resistance Army (NRA), under the leadership of the
Current President, His Excellency Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, to start a
protracted guerrilla war in the Luweero Triangle2 and it captured power in
1986. This was the first time in the history of Uganda that a broad-based
social movement resisted and overthrew the state and at the end of it all, it
was called “a people’s war”. During the war, the National Resistance
Movement (NRM)3, established commissariats with political commissars which
politicised the masses in their captured territory. They introduced the
Resistance Councils (RCs), which later became Local Councils (LCs), to provide
a leadership structure that would ensure consultation and popular political
participation from the village level, through the parish, sub-county, county
and district. This popular uprising, is unanimously believed by all (including
Museveni’s critics), to be the foundation of democratic dispensation and
made possible an enduring constitutionalism for the first time in the history
of Uganda. This it did through promulgation of a code of conduct for the
armed forces and destruction of traditional instruments of local hegemony.
2.1.3 CSOs in the NRM period
The political environment created and politics of inclusiveness that was
preached by the NRM at the time, provided space for the springing up of
NGOs and other CSOs4. Faced with dire need of almost all basics of life,
after the political turmoil and economic mis-management, with enormous
reconstruction and rehabilitation work for Government to do, most of the
NGOs and CSOs that were registered after 1986, were either focused on
relief or were small scale, self reliant local initiatives (mostly CBOs). All
CSOs looked at themselves as providers of welfare services to the poor and
The five year guerrilla war led by Yoweri Meseveni was launched and fought in what is now
known as the Luweero Triangle which comprises the districts of Luwero, Mubende, Mpigi,
Kibaale and Kiboga Districts in the Central Region.
3
NRM is the political wing of the NRA.
4
Currently, there are 3,750 NGOs registered with the NGO Registration Board in the
Ministry of Internal Affairs. This excludes the CBOs that are registered at the District
level.
2
12
marginalized members of the society. Their actions focused on meeting
practical needs of the poor such as food, clothes, housing, and later on
support to alleviate suffering resulting from the HIV/AIDS epidemic in
Uganda. As war receded in most parts of the country and relief needs
reduced, most CSOs moved into community development projects. This is
clear evidence of the direct relationship between the general political space
and environment and a vibrant civil society.
2.1.4 The current structural outlay of civil society in Uganda
Having gone through the chaos described above, the local people at the
grassroots level, positioned themselves in small CBOs5 to make better use of
the goods and services that were being provided by NGOs and other CSOs.
While some of these CBOs emerged out of the small cultural groups that had
existed since time immemorial, some of them came into existence through
direct mobilisation by the NGOs or indirect mobilisation after having realised
that this is the preferred method of work used by the NGOs and other
CSOs, according to Opio-Odongo and Oloa, 1996. A CBO may be defined as a
group of individuals within the same community, who come together in a group
with a common interest and to achieve commonly agreed upon objectives.
While it is convenient for the CBOs to pull resources by being in an
association, it is also convenient to the providers of services, both NGOs and
other CSOs and GOU projects. Besides, CBOS just like NGOs have
developed along similar principles of voluntarism, participation and
partnerships. This has resulted into a spontaneous stucturation of CSOs in
Uganda, and it seems to determine the manner in which any kind of
development support reaches the poor.
5
I have never visited a village, in any of the 56 districts of Uganda that does not have CBOs.
13
Diagram;
A
L
L
I
A
N
C
E
S
/
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
S
INGO
INGO
LNGO
LNGO
CBOCBO
IMs
LNGO
LNGO
CBO
CBO
CBO
CBO
CBO
CBO
IMs
IMs
IMs
In the rural areas, the poor are organised as Individual Members (IMs) in
small and numerous CBOs in their villages. These CBOs are then serviced in
various ways by the Local NGOs (LNGOs). The LNGOs are in turn serviced
by the International NGOs (the INGOs). All are related to each other in a
complexity of partnership arrangement, usually based on financial and nonfinancial support to each other. For most of these CSOs, the common
denominator is the vision of poverty reduction and empowerment of the poor,
although the activities are quite diverse, ranging from delivery of various
services through monitoring, to policy advocacy. In order to perform the
advocacy role more effectively, the CSOs have organised themselves in
networks which are usually thematic or issue based but usually drawing
membership from all categories of CSOs.
3. THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN POVERTY REDUCTION
3.1 Programme Design
One of the greatest values CSOs can add to efforts towards poverty
reduction is participation in design of national poverty reduction
programmes. They come with a wealth of knowledge of the realities of the
14
poor and experiences of interacting with them. This is based on their
experience in designing such programmes for their own organisations. This
would ensure synergy among CSOs with good practical experience and
Government technocrats who usually have the necessary technical
knowledge. In Uganda, participation of CSOs in the drafting of the
national Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) resulted into a very rich
document reflecting the voices of the poor. This however happened
mostly at national level with most CSO participants coming from the
INGOs and Kampala based LNGOS. During The revision of the first PEAP
in the year 2000, more CSOs participated and carried out regional
consultations, which included district LNGOs and community groups in
four regions of the country. They have also participated in the production
of the popular version of the PEAP.
Some of the important lessons here are; more active participation of the
CSOs with better experience from participation in the first process. This
made Uganda’s PEAP whose summary became Uganda’s Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper (PRSP) one of the best in terms of language and targeting
of the poor generally and various marginalized groups in particular;
stronger ownership of the PEAP by the CSOs with mobilised groups of
CSOs participating in the sector working groups under the PEAP to draw
sectoral plans e.g. agriculture, education health, water and sanitation etc;
better understanding of the PEAP by community groups. Without
participation of the CSOs it would not have been possible for government
to consult the various community groups.
3.2 Planning
Another critical contribution that CSOs can make to poverty reduction is
their involvement and active participation in the various planning
processes at national, district and sub county levels. Most of them already
have experience of participatory planning with communities within there
own organisations and can get involved in mobilisation of community
groups, facilitation of the planning exercises and priority setting with felt
needs of the poor in mind.
Here just like in programme design, active CSO participation is more at
national than local levels mainly due to capacity limitations. For example
15
there was active CSO participation at national level in the development of
the various sectoral plans such as the Plan for Modernisation of
Agriculture (PMA), Health Sector Strategic Plan (HSSP), Education
Strategic Investment Plan (ESIP), etc, and yet there has been very
limited CSO participation at district and sub county levels to draw the
local plans which are a pre-requisite for Medium Term Expenditure
Framework (MTEF). Section 36 of the local Government Act 1997 of
Uganda vests the power of planning in districts on district councils as the
district planning authority. More CSO participation at lower levels would
make a much needed contribution in ensuring that districts make a
comprehensive and integrated plans incorporating the plans of the lower
councils as is expected of them.
3.3
Implementation of Own and Government Programmes
Considering their long experience in service delivery, since the days of the
post war period, the CSOs have developed many innovative ways of
implementing development programmes in a cost effective manner, with
active participation of the rural poor and often with high level of impact. This
has been demonstrated in the area of health service delivery, civic education,
conflict resolution, counselling, agricultural technology transfer, etc. They
have developed capacity in the use of the participatory development
methodology which makes them good at reaching the rural poor,
communicating with them, analysing their needs and working towards a
solution together with them.
Although CSOs themselves have been engaged in the debate as to whether or
not to deliver social services, many of them still do deliver services simply
because this is what they can do best. The need for CSOs to deliver services
may reduce as the ability of Government to deliver the services improves.
Besides, many CSOs believe that there is a very thin line between service
delivery and other activities at various stages in the programme cycle
management. To strengthen their case further, they believe there are no
two stages that are mutually exclusive and involvement in various stages
enriches their capacity, generally.
16
When CSOs are involved in implementation, GOU has the opportunity to
utilise the innovative and cost effective implementation experiences of CSOs
through subcontracting. In Uganda examples include: the Cassava
multiplication programme that was led by VeCo-Uganda and partners in
Eastern Uganda, the Nutritional and Early Childhood Development Project
(NECDP) where one NGO, the National Association of Women Organisation in
Uganda (NAWOU) is the lead implementation agency in 9 districts in Uganda.
Other examples include the District Health Support Programme (DHSP),
Entandikwa6, Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP), etc. In implementing
these programmes the NGOs mobilised communities, sensitised them and
imparted knowledge and skills, extended credit facilities and monitored loan
recovery and reported to local governments on the progress of the
programmes. In all these programmes, CSOs responded either to felt needs
of the poor or a call from GOU. Either way, if CSOs are systematically
involved in the stages prior to implementation their interest in implementing
the programmes grows and the impact is higher since there is more
ownership.
3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
One of the most complex stages in a programme cycle is monitoring and
evaluation and the best way of doing it seems to be the involvement of the
beneficiaries. This is another area in which NGOs have good experience since
most of them are wholly dependant on donors that require strict programme
monitoring and evaluation. This, coupled with their general experience in
participatory development methodology, the CSOs can make useful
contribution right from setting indicators with communities and mobilising
them through their various networks to carry out participatory monitoring
and evaluation of the poverty reduction programmes.
In Uganda, the Uganda Debt Network (UDN) mobilised a network of CSOs in
17 districts into PAF7 Monitoring Committees (PMCs) to monitor the use of
debt relief funds in the implementation of GOU’s Priority Programme Areas
(PPAs) which are primary health care, Universal primary education,
6
Entandikwa is seed money which was given by the government of Uganda to the rural poor.
PAF (Poverty Action Fund) is a fund saved from Debt Relief to Uganda and set aside for
spending on the poverty priority areas of the Government of Uganda.
7
17
agricultural extension services and provision of safe water. Using its
experience on PAF monitoring, UDN has designed a successor programme
called the Budget Advocacy Initiative (BAI) that is building the capacity of
the CSOs in the network to understand the budgetary processes at local and
national levels, in order to do effective monitoring. It also aims at helping the
CSOs to understand the linkage between budget, planning and policy. Besides,
it involves the rural poor themselves in various monitoring activities and
hence they are able to facilitate the grassroots people to hold their leader
accountable and ensure that resources reach intended beneficiaries and thus
playing the watchdog role expected of them. For example the BAI of UDN is
carried out alongside anti corruption campaigns under the Anti Corruption
Coalition of Uganda (ACCU).
According to Pontiano Muhwezi (2001), CSOs are usually involved in
qualitative research with communities, documentation and sharing of
experiences and information dissemination that further enhances their
capacity to contribute meaningfully in policy dialogue.
3.5 The Role of CSOs in Policy Dialogue
If CSOs can make such critical contributions in various aspects of poverty
reduction programmes it becomes even more imperative that they are
involved in policy dialogue. However, this area is a fairly new one for many
CSOs in Uganda (mainly because of the political history), save for the INGOs
who have been doing this in their own countries of origin. The negative
political experiences have made many Ugandans apathetic towards politics.
In the constitution of most NGOs a clause indicating their apolitical nature is
enshrined. More and more however, local CSOs are getting involved in policy
dialogue as is expected of them but mainly at national level.
The increasing role of local CSOs in policy dialogue is itself an indication of
the realisation that development by its very nature is political and besides,
however hard CSOs may work to deliver services, if the policies nullify the
impact of the services on the intended beneficiaries, then it is a farce. They
are therefore aiming higher at more sustainable changes that are structural
by continuously asking critical questions of power relations in society. When
CSOs play this role, they are at an advantage because they possess relevant
18
information about the current reality in the communities they work in and
have a commitment to attain political, economic and socio-cultural justice.
Besides, they enjoy enormous grassroots networks through their CBO
partners.
Although the GOU has encouraged the participation of CSOs/NGOs in
development work in general, certain sections of GOU in line ministries are
not very comfortable with the involvement of CSOs in policy dialogue (Sarah
Lister and Warren Nyamugasira, 2001). In many cases, there has been lip
service by GOU because many important discussions still take place without
civil society participation, or being brought in very late. On the other hand
CSOs believe that the limited space that GOU has offered in policy dialogue
is partly due to pressure from donors. The CSOs on the other hand, seem to
wait for invitation by Government officials before they can participate in any
policy dialogue. The ability of civil society to put real pressure on GOU
behind important issues of principle however, are still generally lacking.
Examples of the role of CSOs in policy dialogue include the Structural
Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI), led by the Uganda
National NGO-Forum, the civil consultation on PEAP and debt relief campaign
by UDN, Civil society input in the Uganda Land Act 1998 led by Uganda Land
Alliance (ULA), CSO input into the PMA led by VeCo-Uganda, the Food Rights
Alliance (FRA) and the Uganda National Farmers’ Federation (UNFFE).
3.6 Capacity Building through Training and Partnerships
The wealth of experiences that exist among CSOs in the use of participatory
development methodology can be used to build capacity of people in local
Government both through training and partnerships in programme
implementation. An example of capacity building by CSOs for GOU in Uganda
are; Participatory methodology training by Community Development Resource
Network (CDRN).
Example of partnerships which usually go beyond solving specific problems
and capacity building, to the extent of reflecting a shared vision about a
desirable future of society in Uganda, are: the partnership between the Save
the Children Denmark (SCD) and various local government around the country
19
and that between the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) and the
local Governments of West Nile districts. Today reports from the West Nile
local Government to the Ministry of Finance reflect improved management
capacity and are one of the best, according to officials of the Finance
ministry.
3.7 The Role of CSOs in Civic Education
CSOs have played a very important and unique role in providing civic
education to the people of Uganda. Many of them, in partnership with their
international counterparts, are adopting a rights based approach to
development. In a country like Uganda with the kind of political history
described above, majority of the people either do not know their rights or
cannot imagine claiming them. Organisations like the Federation of
International Women Lawyers, Uganda Chapter (FIDA-U) have played an
important role in education women about their rights which is part of civic
education. A group of CSOs led by the Uganda Joint Christian Council (UJCC)
in an alliance called the National Election Monitoring Group(NEM Group),
played an important role in election monitoring in three key elections in
Uganda namely; Referendum on political parties June 2000, Presidential
elections in March 2001 and parliamentary elections in June 2001. They are
planning to use their experience from election monitoring in a more long term
civic education programme. The Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) is educating the
rural poor on their land rights as stipulated in the Uganda Land Act 1998.
The FRA is an alliance of CSOs advocating food security as a human right and
is sensitising Ugandans on food security related policies and inclusion of food
security in trade policies.
4.
CHALLENGES FACED BY CIVIL SOCIETY
Although CSOs have a very critical role to play in poverty reduction, they
face a lot of challenges that can be generally sub-divided into two; the
internal organisational ones and those of an institutional nature.
20
4.1 Organisational Challenges
These challenges are based on some of the key components of
organisational effectiveness. It is important to note that as one moves
down the ladder of the structural outlays (P. 3 above), the rating on these
components get worse i.e. the INGOs are generally better off than the
LNGOs who are also better off than the CBOs.
4.1.1 Governance
For many of the CSOs, Governance is a serious and sometimes chronic
problem, especially for the LNGOs and the CBOs. Although many of them
are usually legally registered, and have well articulated visions and
missions, they have problems with leadership and policy making. This is
partly because the emergence of these organisations on voluntary basis
and as they grow and become more complex, a few people fall into the
founders’ trap, and cannot give way to new competencies that are required
for the growing organisations. In addition, while accountability to donors
are usually on time, there is sometimes limited accountability to their
constituency. This eventually erodes their credibility and limits their
capacity to play the roles outlined above, especially the monitoring and
evaluation role and the advocacy role.
4.1.2 Management
Although this is not a critical problem, it manifests itself in the work of
CSOs. Management aspects like administrative procedures, personnel
policies, planning, programme development and reporting is usually well
done.
Major problems are faced in developing well functioning
Management Information Systems (MIS) and structuring. For those
CSOs involved in areas that are critical to poverty reduction like delivery
of social services or agricultural development, they quickly get
overwhelmed by expansion of activities, which then demand high levels of
professionalism and management capacity.
21
4.1.3 Financial resources
Most CSOs are donor-dependent for most of their activities and are
therefore very vulnerable to waves and shifts in donor interests. Besides,
some source of funding may become a hindrance instead of a facilitation
to support the work of CSOs. For example the recent shift by major
donors towards budget support to developing country Governments in
support of Sector Wide Investment Plans (SWIPs), is a threat to many
CSOs, especially those involved in monitoring and evaluation and policy
dialogue. They see very limited chances in obtaining funds from GOU to
deliver certain services which may include “criticising GOU as well”.
Another dilemma is the fact that most CSOs receive very restricted
funds in terms of budget lines, and this limits innovativeness and becomes
even more difficult in fluid areas like advocacy.
4.1.4 Human resources
In the past decade, many CSOs have been able to attract highly trained
staff (University degree and above) but retaining them is becoming a
major problem. By the nature of work in the CSOs, there is very limited
room for career development and this is major source of frustration for
many potentially good staff in the CSOs to develop their career, since the
choice to develop one’s career may also mean you losing the job they
already enjoy doing. Also, most capacity building programmes offered to
Governments in terms of scholarships are not accessible to CSOs.
4.1.5 Service delivery
The major problem being voiced by many CSOs is the fear of depending on
budget support funds from Government and hence getting exposed to the
corrupt practices of some Government officials in Uganda.
Since
everybody is vulnerable to corrupt practices, this should be a concern for
all. There also seems to be an attitude problem, especially at local
Government levels that do not look at service delivery by CSOs as
complimentary but rather competitive and hence creating some resistance
faced by the CSOs.
22
4.1.6 Sustainability
This is a continuous discussion among CSOs in Uganda. One of the
problems faced by the CSOs emerges from the fact that their
constituents look at them as charities who are supposed to give, either
with minimal or no contribution from the constituents. Besides, most of
the CSOs depend on project-type support that makes it difficult to
develop alternative sources of funding or build on their financial base,
which is critical for sustainability. The high level of illiteracy in the rural
areas also limits sustainability.
4.2 Institutional Challenges
These set of challenges will focus on the positioning of the CSOs in the
overall development scene, since indeed, they cannot operate in isolation.
4.2.1 Intra CSO (CSO-CSO) relationships
Here the relationship can be gereally described as “you do your thing and
let me do mine”. In Uganda, there has been several attempts by various
groups to “co-ordinate the CSOs”. The issue has been debated for a long
time and while some people believe that there is no need to make such
attempts in the first place, since civil society is supposed to be free,
others emphasise the need for CSO-CSO relationships because it has
several advantages e.g. pooling resources, and reducing on duplication, and
building a collective voice which is a pre-requisite for advocacy. The
challenge however, has many faces to it. The sheer numbers and diversity
of CSOs in Uganda, makes it a difficult task to nurture and sustain
relationships among CSOs and yet it is very necessary to ease the work of
CSOs themselves and the work of those who must relate with the CSOs.
In service delivery, there is manifestation of competition among CSOs for
donor funds which creates even more friction. One of the problems that
make CSO-CSO relationship more difficult is the fact that the
relationship of one level and the next lower one has not been empowering
but instead, a collaboration to help the higher level achieve its objective,
sort of extractive, with capacity building as a by-product and not a
strategic investment area in the relationship.
23
4.2.2 CSO-government relationships
This relationship can best be described as a “love-hate” one. While people
in Government welcome CSOs when they are delivering services, they are
reluctant to let CSOs in the policy arena. This is mainly because many
people in Government doubt the capacity of the people within the CSOs to
engage meaningfully in policy dialogue. On the flipside of it sometimes,
Government has invited CSOs to participate and only a handful of them
can sustain the effort and level of discussions involved. Even in the policy
arena, CSOs are welcome by GOU if they are criticising donors on a
specific issue and are in favour of GOU position or if they are voicing an
issue of one Ministry (usually Finance) against another (usually line
ministries) e.g. more money for a specific Ministry from MFPED. The
budget support to Government by donors is envisaged to complicate this
relationship further.
Government also uses its power to suppress CSO opinion if it views an
issue to be “political”, a term that is now understood to mean a warning to
CSOs not to get involved in an issue in a manner that Government does not
like, another confirmation of the direct relationship between general
political space and vibrancy of civil society. Although CSOs, especially at
national level have participated a lot in policy dialogue, this is not common
at local level, mainly due to capacity problems and tighter power
structures at local levels. Besides, CSOs have not adequately moved to
the level of holing Government to account and mobilising people to demand
and claim for their rights. Another challenge that CSOs face in fostering
relationship with Government is the capacity gap that exists between the
two. While people in Government are usually well trained technically, they
have had very limited opportunity for exposure to short term training,
experience sharing, and new ways of doing things. This usually strains
rather than enhances the relationship between the two.
4.2.3 CSO-development partners (donor) relationships
The relationship here is usually an outright “patron-client one”, with very
limited flexibility. A lot of the CSOs shift their objectives depending on
donor moods and this affects their ability to effectively perform the
24
roles indicated above. However, the CSOs in Uganda are quite happy with
the pressure that donors have put on Government to open up space for
their participation. For the specific case of advocacy, CSOs find it very
difficult to advocate for a position that donors hold differing opinions on.
There are times when CSOs find it frustrating when pushing for a
specific position which would be good for poverty reduction, only to
discover that Government cannot do much because of conditionalities
from the development partners.
4.2.4 CSO-private sector relationship
This relationship can be described as “we are incompatible”. The notion of
private sector in Uganda is business for profit and nobody has so far
invested in this type of relationship in any way, not even just to study and
try to see if there could be possibilities for synergy. CSOs themselves do
not put any effort here because they believe there objectives work
against each other’s.
5. STRATEGIES/APPROACHES TO STRENGTHEN CIVIL SOCIETY
The development partners like the EU have a big role to play in shaping
the strengthening of civil society in Uganda.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
There is need for investment in organisational development
processes that gradually improve the various components of CSOs
as well as the Government’s various arms and at all levels. This
should not be a one off training programme but a long-term process
of capacity building that empowers those involved to play the roles
expected of them.
In supporting organisational strengthening and institutional
development processes, donors need to ware of the structural
outlay of the CSOs, the context, and spread the support at all
necessary levels.
It will be critical to support mechanisms to ensure that CSOs are
accountable, not only to the donors but also to the constituents.
Development partners, in their relationship with our Governments
need to aim at collaboration where empowerment and capacity
25
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
building is key, an objective in itself, not only of Government as the
direct partner but also of the CSOs to engage meaningfully, so that
the relationship slowly moves into long term partnerships, i.e. look
at the both the supply side and the demand side.
In providing financial support to CSOs, it is important to be more
flexible, to allow room for innovations as well as strategic thinking.
Greater focus in a more programme type of support as opposed to
the project type would go a long way in enhancing the role of CSOs
in poverty reduction.
There is need for investment in career development for people in
civil society so that there is an incentive for active and intelligent
people to remain in civil society and have opportunity to make a
contribution from there.
EU needs to consider investing in general sensitisation of all
sections and levels of government to appreciate the added value of
a strong civil society in a country’s development process. This
should include support on dialogue on general political space.
More investment is needed in dialogue that fosters a strong
relationship between Civil Society and government but without
compromising the independence of civil society.
There is need for more dialogue between donors and civil society to
enhance donors’ understanding of the specific dynamics of civil
society in each country. This understanding would assist in bettertargeted support to civil society strengthening.
26
REFERENCES
Government of Uganda, 1997: The Local Government Act 1997.
Karugire, S. R., 1980; A political History of Uganda, Heinemann Education Books,
Nairobi.
MFPED, 2002; Background to the budget, Financial year 2003/2003.
Nyang’oro Julius E., 1999; Civil Society and Democratic Development in Africa.
Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa, MWENGO, Zimbabwe.
Opio-Odongo, JMA and Oloa, Coopibo Uganda, 1996; The Role of professionals:
Ugandan case study of selected organisations, prepared for Coopibo’s exchange
seminar, 1996.
Pontian Muhwezi, 2001; Collaborating, partnership and networking.
Pontian Muhwezi, 2001; The Role of Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in
the decentralisation process in Uganda.
Richard C. Crook, 2001; Strengthening Democratic Governance in Conflict Torn
Societies.
Sarah, Lister and Warren, Nyamugasira, 2001; Involvement of Civil Society in
Policy Dialogue, prepared for DFID
Susan Dicklitch, 1998; The Elusive Promises of NGOs in Africa: Lessons from
Uganda.
Vredeseilanden-Coopibo Uganda, 2000; The challenge of influencing policy
change: The role of Civil Society in Uganda.
William Booth & Robert Morin, 1995; Assessing organisational capacity through
monitoring and evaluation.
27