Prime
NPA: Benefits of the shift in budgeting approach elusive
National Planning Authority executive director Joseph Muvawala. Photo | Courtesy of his X Handle
What you need to know:
- The National Planning Authority says many entities do not fully align their work plans and budgets with PIAPs, undermining the coherence of the planning-to-implementation chain.
Nearly five years after it was implemented with the sole purpose of solving problems with output-based budgeting, a number of rough edges around Uganda’s programme-based budgeting approach remain a cause for concern. A reform intended to shift the focus of budgetary processes from control of inputs to producing measurable results, programme budgeting has since July 2020 been applied to Uganda’s planning, budgeting, implementation, and results reporting. This was during the onset of the National Development Plan (NDP) III.
The National Planning Authority (NPA) had hoped that the shift would encourage the ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) to stop working in silos. The end result, NPA further hoped, was better coordination between the central and the local governments operating in silos, leading to fragmented implementation. This, however, has not been the case, with low compliance with Programme Implementation Action Plans (PIAPs) widely cited. “Many entities do not fully align their work plans and budgets with PIAPs, undermining the coherence of the planning-to-implementation chain. This also affects tracking of performance against agreed programme results,” Mr Joseph Muvawala, the executive director of NPA, said last month.
Mr Muvawala, who was presenting a paper titled Programme-based Budgeting: Successes and Challenges on April 23, made it abundantly clear that there is work to be done. “Some programmes lack clearly defined and measurable outcome and output indicators, making it difficult to track progress and report meaningfully on results. There is inconsistency in indicator quality, baselines, and targets across MDAs,” he said at the third Public Finance Management (PFM) symposium. He added: “Data Gaps and Weak M&E [monitoring and evaluation] systems [as well as] weaknesses in statistical systems hinder the ability to generate timely, disaggregated, and credible data for evidence-based decision-making. The poor performance of the NDP III at MTR was due to lack of data on over 56 percent of the indicators.” More bottlenecks The other challenges Mr Muvawala spelt out include lack of budget credibility and supplementaries. He said high reliance on supplementary budgets and off-budget funding disrupts programme planning.
It also undermines budget predictability, a central plank of the programme based approach to planning and budgeting. While the problem of limited enforcement of accountability mechanisms is not new, it has been unrelenting in its infliction of pain. Whereas performance contracts and annual reviews exist, enforcement of accountability for non-performance remains weak. This is primarily due to lack of service delivery standards. There is little consequence for underachievement of programme targets or misalignment with PIAPs. The paper the NPA boss presented last month further indicates that the government has a non-aligned structure. Per NPA, ministries and Parliament not only require restructuring but also need to be aligned with a programme-based approach. Additionally, the planning function in MDAs has been weakened and subsumed under finance and administration. This negatively affects policy, budgeting and execution. The weak capacity along the entire PFM chain (planning, budgeting, implementation, accounting, and audit) has not helped matters. NPA says it has compromised the ability to define, measure, deliver and account for results. “Overlaps in budgeting and accounting roles between programmes and votes. While programmes are leading the budgeting processes, votes still make supplementary requests exclusive of programmes. The PFM Act still empowers votes to do so,” Mr Muvawala said.
Implementation reforms
To overcome the challenges that have persisted in the implementation of programme-based budgeting, Mr Muvawala told Sunday Monitor that there are a number of reforms that are being implemented. These include strengthening coordination mechanisms across programmes; reinforce the role of programme working groups (PWGs) to ensure better coordination among MDAs; also targeted are local governments, and non-state actors, through joint planning; full alignment of plans and budgets with PIAPs; and require MDAs and LGs to strictly align their work plans and budgets to PIAPs. Others are institutionalisation of annual programme reviews; institutionalise annual joint programme reviews to evaluate progress, adjust plans, and ensure accountability for results; and use the Government Annual and Half Annual Performance Reports (GAPR & NHAPR) as core accountability tools. Capacity building for programme-based planning and M&E (monitoring and evaluation), which involves conducting targeted capacity strengthening for MDAs and LGs in: Results-based planning; programme costing; monitoring and evaluation; statistical analysis and data management.
Linking PBA to staff performance and accountability in which the MDAs has to integrate programme results into performance contracts for accounting officers, heads of departments, and other implementers. Establish consequence frameworks for underperformance or non-compliance. As far as promoting flexibility is concerned in resource allocation in this case, Mr Muvawala said this proposes more flexible PFM mechanisms to allow intra- and inter-programme reallocations based on performance and emerging priorities. “Improve data, statistics and M&E systems. To generate timely, disaggregated, and credible data for evidence-based decision-making. Restructure government for better alignment with the programme approach. This entails reviewing parliamentary committee structures and ministries to align them with the programme-based approach. Comprehensive capacity building programmes should be undertaken at all levels of government and along the entire PFM cycle,” he said, adding that reform also speaks to wide-ranging changes to the PFM Act review to align roles of all actors in the implementation of government programmes.
The benefits
Globally, the main advantages of programme budgeting are as follows: It enables the government to focus on priority needs in the various sectors of the economy (such as malaria eradication, primary healthcare, and infant mortality in the health sector), and specify the amount of government (and potentially other) resources that will be allocated to address these priorities. It supports the development of measurable indicators to assess the impact of the deployment of resources. Monitoring the specified indicators at the end of the budgeting period, or in a year, could form a feedback loop to change the deployment of resources as necessary. Armed with the information on impact of the resources deployed, programme managers could be held accountable for the achievement of the desired outcomes for each sector as spelled out by measurable indicators. Prof Augustus Nuwagaba, the central bank deputy governor, says the singular problem Uganda’s PFM grapples with is an inherent weakness to planning processes at the MDAs. “We are failing to link plans with strategies and resources available.” The PFM meetings are being spearheaded by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda. Prof Nuwagaba said the accountants’ needs to ensure that there is greening in accounting that caters for climate change and resources accounting in place to support economic growth.
