Experiences of Gender Responsive Budgeting in Uganda

EXPERIENCES OF GENDER RESPONSIVE BUDGETING IN UGANDA[1]

National Socio-Economic Context

The economy

Agriculture is the key sector of the economy employing over 80 percent of the workforce, with coffee accounting for the bulk of export revenues. More women (75%) than men (68%) are engaged in agriculture. The majority of the population is dependent on subsistence farming. Women provide an estimated 70-80 percent of the agricultural labour force, are responsible for about 80 percent of food crop production and provide 50-60 percent of the labour for cash crop production. Government has prepared various strategies to improve agricultural production. These include the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA), and the Strategic Exports Programme, and the Medium-Term Competitive Strategy for the Private Sector. Due to gender-based inequalities in resource utilisation and ownership, women have not taken advantage of the above strategies. This has hindered their efficiency of production and therefore national agricultural output.

The country has registered good progress in economic growth over the past two decades. It has sustained an average economic growth rate of 5.6 percent which is slightly higher than the average growth of 5 percent achieved by the non-oil producing countries in Africa. It has also controlled inflation levels at single digits. Private investment as a percentage of GDP has grown from 12.4 percent 2002/03 to 17.9 percent 2006/07, an average increase of 16 percent. The number of people living below the poverty line reduced from 56 percentin 1992 to 31 percent in 2006.

Despite these positive economic developments, Uganda continues to be one of the poorest countries in the world. In 2006, per capita incomewasestimated at US$300. Women are more likely to be poorer than men due to gender imposed constraints such as: i) lack of ownership of assets; ii) lack of opportunities for employment and income generation; iii) lack of education; and iv) exclusion from decision-making.

The planning process

Government has pursued a poverty eradication agenda since 1997. It has also adopted a more inclusive approach to development. Its PRSP/PEAP is based on participatory poverty assessments. Policy formulation, planning and budgeting are becoming increasingly more consultative processes. A constitutionally-mandated National Planning Authority (NPA) was created in 2002, composed of central government, local governments and stakeholder representatives, to encourage and support national economic development and provide a permanent forum for dialogue between government, civil society and the private sector. The NPA spearheads the development of long range planning. Amongst other things, the NPA has prepared the draft Vision 2035 and is heavily involved in the preparation of the National Development Plan (NDP). The NDP will replace the PEAP as the key planning framework.

In order to ensure the institutionalisation of gender in the national development process, it is important that CSOs ensure that gender is effectively addressed during the finalisation of the Vision 2025 as well as the NDP.

The government introduced a cash budget system in 1992, before adopting a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) in 1998. Sector ministries and national stakeholders participate in the preparation of the budget through Sector Working Groups (SWGs). These prepare Budget Framework Papers on the basis of ceilings set up by the MoFPED.

CSOs are involved in these processes in various ways. The National NGO Forum chaired the CSOs PEAP sector revision group. The Forum is a collective voice for civil society which brings together NGOs working in areas of advocacy and lobbying to effectively engage on public policies, so that they reflect the views and concerns of the poor. The Forum also participates in the NPA and the SWGs which are engaged in budget formulation.

The extent to which gender is mainstreamed in these processes is highly dependent on the level of participation of the national machinery as well as gender sensitive CSOs. As the subsequent sections show, due to financial and human resources’ constraints, the MoGLSD and the CSOs are not always well-positioned to participate in these processes. For example, all the sectors follow the same annual planning and budgeting cycles. While many of them invite the MoGLSD and relevant CSOs to participate, this is not always possible because both are short-staffed. Additionally, GRB is a relatively new concept, and presently, its definition and conceptualization is not sufficient to allow for transformatory change in the budget process. While there is some level of GRB awareness and sensitivity, there is yet to be a critical mass of individuals and CSOs with the necessary capacity to ensure that this is completely translated into responsiveness. In effect, GRB is yet to be fully actualised in national and local government budgeting processes. The question constantly posed is: how shall we do it?

Women’s activism

The Uganda women’s movement constitutes of an unfettered association of women's groups. These are organised under the umbrella of NAWOU. Several are community based and are involved in self-help activities intended to empower them. Others such as the Uganda Women's Network (UWONET), FOWODE, ACFODE, and CEEWA-U operate at the national level and engage the state over diverse gender concerns. Some have been involved in the strengthening of the gender capacities of women members of parliament (MPs). The purpose is to facilitate the MPs to be conscious of women’s needs and gender differences in order to ensure that they are addressed in legislation and national resource allocation.

Their activism has resulted into the clarification of the significance of gender relations to development. Further, it has improved the visibility of women and gender issues on the policy agenda. It has also had some bearing on constitutional and law reform. Amongst other things, women’s organisations advocated for the institutionalisation of affirmative action in the Constitution as well as the enactment of a relatively gender sensitive 1998 Land Act.

Through UWONET, an advocacy and lobbying coalition of national women’s NGOs, institutions and individuals, the women’s movement is pushing for the enactment of the DRB. A further notable achievement of the women’s movement is the promotion of gender accountability. Women’s NGOs mobilise communities, provide them with information on civic and other rights and consult them on their problems and needs. Through facilitating the vertical flow of information between the women’s constituency and government, leaders can no longer ignore gender.

In order to consolidate these gains and realize more, there is need to sustain a strong women’s movement able to take advantage of new opportunities such as the NAMs.

Overview of Gender Responsive Budgeting

GRB started in Uganda in the late 1990s. The key player has been FOWODE, which has, since 1999, been combining GRB research and activism to influence policy. Other CSOs engaged in GRB include ACFODE and the CEEWA-U.

The overall objective of FOWODE’s GRB programme is to achieve gender-balanced national and district budgets that address the needs of women and men, girls and boys equitably and give full attention to other marginalised groups such as persons with disabilities (PWDs). The programme aims to: i) influence government spending to address gender needs; ii) make more visible the contribution of women to the national economy and to make their needs central in budget debates; and iii) build expertise in reading and analysing budgets among Members of Parliament (MPs), district legislators, government planners involved in the budget process and among researchers NGOs/CBOs and the media.

To make the budgeting process more democratic, the programme also lobbies women politicians and their allies to participate more effectively in determining resource allocations. In addition, the programme aims to make the government more accountable to citizens and the budget process more transparent.

ACFODE’s GRB programme involves budget research, training in gender budgeting skills for women leaders and technocrats, and GRB advocacy. The difference is in the scope of work and the level of operation. ACFODE embarked on GRB activities in 2004. This was in recognition of the fact that despite the enabling policy environment on gender, there were considerable disparities in the allocation of public resources. ACFODE identified limited local governments’ capacities for gender budgeting as one of the biggest challenges. ACFODE thus works at the local governments’ level. It piloted its work in two districts: Masaka and Tororo.

The over all goal of ACFODE’s GRB programme is to achieve gender responsive district and sub-county budgets. The specific objectives include: i) increase the awareness of the decision-makers to the importance of gender budgeting; ii) impart skills and techniques of gender budgeting to decision-makers so that they can oversee the integration of gender concerns in national, district and sub-county budgets; iii) promote transparency and accountability in the budgets and budget process; and iv) promote and encourage the participation of civil society and community based organizations in influencing expenditure priorities.

CEEWA does not have a GRB programme per se. However, gender advocacy underlies most of its core activities: women and agriculture; women and finance; gender and economic decision-making; and women and entrepreneurship development. CEEWA has been involved in some GRB-related activities during the execution of its work. This has involved generating gender disaggregated data especially pertaining to the agricultural sector and using that information to influence economic policy, plans and programmes. At the grassroots level, CEEWA has worked with Kabale district local government to strengthen its capacity to plan, allocate resources and deliver services in a more gender responsive manner. One of the specific areas of focus during the capacity building is the importance of gender disaggregated data in defining district development priorities.

Both CSOs work in close collaboration with FOWODE. ACFODE’s GRB work is closely modelled to that of FOWODE. FOWODE and CEEWA have also occasionally conducted GRB training together. While the two CSOs have initiated GRB activities, they both acknowledge it as FOWODE’s niche.

Policy Impact

At the national level, FOWODE has been undertaking budget analysis through scrutinizing the nature of allocations and the impacts on men and women, boys and girls. The focus has been on three sectors: agriculture, health and education. Occasionally, FOWODE conducts a gender analysis of the national budget. FOWODE uses this analysis as the basis of its evidence-based advocacy. These sectors, more especially education and health, are some of the most advanced as far as mainstreaming gender in their SWAps and annual Budget Framework Papers (BFPs) are concerned. Whereas it would be too simplistic to argue that FOWODE has influenced public expenditure in these sectors with positive outcomes for women, its advocacy work is likely to have been a contributory factor.

At the local government level, FOWODE and ACFODE have been providing practical hands-on training in gender budget analysis. This has been effective and has translated into more gender responsive local government plans and budgets in the six districts in which the two organisations operate: Luwero, Kibaale, Kabale, Pallisa, Masaka and Tororo.

Parliamentarians and local government councillors commend FOWODE and ACFODE’s GRB work arguing that this has improved the quality of their debate especially as it relates to their arguing a case for gender.

As a result of the activism spearheaded by FOWODE, there is now a widespread awareness and acceptance of the need for GRB. As noted above, there have been some changes in policy and budgets as well as a broader understanding of gender equality. The process has now shifted into the realm of government operations with the MoFPED, which is responsible for resource mobilisation and allocation, taking the lead.

One of the national priority poverty actions is gender and equity budgeting analysis. Accordingly, in 2004, the MoFPED prepared Gender and Equity Guidelines as well as a User’s Manual and Implementation Strategyguidelines to assist in the preparation of BFPs that address gender and equity issues. This has provided the necessary fiscal underpinning to government’s gender equality/equity commitments.

Through the Budget Call Circulars of 2004/05 and 2005/06, the MoFPED mandated all sectors to integrate gender and equity in their BFPs. The User’s Manual was attached to the Budget Call Circulars. However, due to lack of capacity, this was not put to good use. To address this challenge, the MoFPED organised GRB capacity building for gender focal persons, planners and budget officers of five Sectors of Health, Agriculture, Education, JLOS (Justice, Law and Order Sector), and Water and Sanitation. The numbers involved are, evidently, too low to create the necessary critical mass for GRB to be institutionalised. Understandably, despite the national requirement for GRB, the MoFPED is yet to start penalising sectors for non compliance. The MoFPED intends to do so as soon as the GRB capacity of the responsible officers is effectively strengthened.

CSOs’ effectiveness, in general and FOWODE’s success, in particular, in effectively engaging and influencing political processes around budget processes can be summed up as follows:

‘Policy makers have accepted the need to do it (GRB). They now need the tools. So it (FOWODE) has shifted to imparting capacities to various committees of parliament and ministries fall back on FOWODE as technical assistance. That is very striking. Very few of us can claim to have had that impact with an issue started from outside taken on by government.’ NGO Forum[2]

FOWODE’s success in influencing policy is partly attributed to its strategy of working with government. In line with a mainstreaming approach, FOWODE works mainly with the officers responsible for planning and budgeting rather than solely with gender focal points. It also works with the politicians such as MPs and councillors who are responsible for national, sector and local governments’ policy and resource allocation.

FOWODE is one of the two NGOs which are members of the Poverty Eradication Working Group, the other being the UDN. Amongst other things, this working group is charged with:

i)Make recommendations on the overall allocation of resources and intra-resource allocations within sectors;

ii)Review and recommend which sectors qualify to be under the PAF

iii)Guide the sector working groups in applying gender and other PEAP crosscutting principles to the BFPs.

Challenges to GRB

One of the major limitations to the FOWODE and ACFODE’s approach to GRB is that it involves an ex-post review of the sector budgets. While this analysis is significant in that it raises awareness about the unjustness of budgets and can influence the subsequent budget cycles it, naturally, does not result into any modifications in that particular budget and its impact on gender relations. Further, FOWODE’s scope of infuence is limited to advocating for improved gender responsiveness. It does not have the mandate to impose upon government how best it should allocate resources.

Another challenge is that the two CSOs work with politicians who, because of their limited terms of office, keep on changing. This is especially so at the local governments level. Whereas the trained ex-politicians could apply GRB skills in their new areas of work, this leaves a capacity gap which has to be continuously met.

Due to limited resources GRB research, to an extent, depends on secondary data. Some of this data is “out-of-date, contradictory” and does not adequately cover women’s work in the care economy and the informal sector. Besides most of it is not gender disaggregated. Until very recently (e.g. UDHS 2006), most national and district surveys and censuses used the household as the unit of data collection, analysis and interpretation. While these, occasionally, contain information on female and male headed households, no such distinction is made between individual women and men. This is a big challenge considering that these surveys are the source of statistically recognised data for policy and planning. The impact of GRB advocacy is thus limited due to the lack of good quality, and quantitative, data. As a matter of fact, some MoFPED officials have dismissed GRB based on qualitative research claiming that it is based on “corridor rumours”.

Related to the above are the difficulties of collecting gender disaggregated data. Gender is relational and, therefore, some aspects are not easily subject to quantification. This could, to some extent, explain why there has not been any substantial work capturing the care economy in the country. This makes it difficult to justify a discussion of the unpaid economy and the largely unregulated informal sector in the budget processes. This has proved to be a challenge to the attainment of, for instance, FOWODE’s objective of “making more visible the contribution of women to the national economy and to make their needs central in budget debates”.