NGOS AND POLICY ENGAGEMENT

CHAPTER FOUR
NGOs / CSOs play a dual role in the development process. They both deliver services but also focus
on issues that help create an environment for the effective delivery of services. Prior to 1980s
NGOs focus was predominately on service delivery while policy issues were a domain of the
government. The strategic change for NGOs to focus on policy engagement was the realization that
focusing on service delivery alone is missing the big picture that is, missing the big issues that
affect development.

Without a correct policy environment, service delivery would not be effective. For example, in
Northern Uganda, NGOs were formed for the purpose of receiving and rehabilitating formerly
abducted children and to integrate them into community. However, these NGOs could not cope
because the problem that caused children to be abducted was not addressed. As a result the NGOs
were overwhelmed to adopt policies that would address the root cause of the problem.

Similarly, the problem of street children in urban cities cannot be solved by NGOs providing shelter
and food and clothes to these children. NGOs must therefore engage with government to cause
policies to be put in place that would reduce the influx of children from rural areas. It is government
that has the capacity to address the complex factors and conditions that send children on the streets.

Framework for NGOs engagement with government

Different countries have different frameworks or arrangements that enable the participation of
NGOs in engaging in policy issues with government. Some of the frameworks are created by the
countries themselves while others are given as conditions by the donor community. Some
frameworks include
i. Poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSP), these are developed by the government stating
how to to tackle poverty and ensure good governance. PRSPs were conditions imposed by
World Bank and IMF on poor countries in order for them to have access to funding and debt
relief. WB and IMF demanded that all PRSPs must clearly provide for partnership between
government and CSOs. Examples of PRSP include Sustainable development, Poverty
reduction programme in Ethiopia, Somali land Strategic Development Policy, and Poverty
Eradication Action Programme and National Development Plan (Uganda). The examples of
PRSP Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme (SDPRP) in Ethiopia
which was followed by Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to end Poverty

1
 (PASDEP), Somaliland Strategic Development Policy (SSDP), and Poverty Eradication
Action Programme (PEAP), and National Development Plan in Uganda.
ii. The Partnership Agreement for African – Caribbean Pacific and European Union, this
agreement emphasises the need for broad participation. Article 2 states that apart from
central government as the main partner, the partnership shall be open to different kinds of
other actors in order to encourage the integration of all sections of society including the
private sector and civil society.
iii. Other Frameworks such as Millennium Development Goals, and Africa Peer Review
Mechanism , All these provide for participation of CSOs / NGOs. For example Africa Peer
Review Mechanism insists on Civil Society participation in joint reviews of government
performance so that the true picture of a county's progress and challenges towards achieving
development goals can be known.
iv. Legal Frameworks, governments make legislations to provide a legal framework for the
existence and operations of NGOs or create an enabling environment. These frameworks
also determine the space government creates for NGOs to engage with government in policy
matters.
Examples of Legal Framework in Uganda
a) The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
b) The Local Government Act 1998
c) NGO, Registration Statute, 1989
d) Registration (Amendment) Bill 2001
e) NGO Registration (Amendment) Act 2006
f) Access to Public Information Act 2005

Barriers to CSOs Policy Engagement

Internal constraints
Organizational problems
inadequate human resources and skills. In order to engage government effectively, NGOs need to
hire qualified experienced and skilled human resource. However, most NGOs cannot afford the
level of technical and professional expertise needed in today's highly competitive and professional
arena. This explains why, especially at the local government level, NGOs influence is highly felt by
the government officials.

2
Inadequate financial resources cripple any advocacy efforts. Lack of financial resources for most
district networks has impacted on their operations as they are not able to undertake any meaningful
policy advocacy programmes in the district and are incapable of coordinating the activities of
CSOs in the districts.

Dependence on donor support to carry out advocacy activities undermines the credibility of CSOs
since often they are mis-constructed as proxies of foreign agencies. So government either engages
with them suspiciously or ignores them altogether.
Proliferation, Attribution and Competition
There are too many NGOs with diverse issues and interests. On many critical issues NGOs can only
agree on a minimum agenda, e.g. the Civil Society Minimum Agenda for 2006 and Beyond. Most
NGOs have no strategies for harmonising their positions and interests to respond to policy issues.
Cohesion can exist when a sense of identity and purpose prevails. The NGO sector is characterised
by unhealthy competition, undermining and attribution.
Credibility gap
Lack of experiential knowledge by NGO leaders. For example, in Uganda only 30% of NGO
leaders are first generation of descendants of poor parents. Most cannot have empath with the poor
because they lack first hand experience of poverty. Therefore they lack conviction while engaging
government on some poverty issues. Also they base their positions on out dated data delivered with
emotions rather than objectivity. These constraints cause credibility issues that make NGOs less
effective in their policy engagement.
Integrity Issues
There are some MONGOS (my own NGOs) with weak and no accountability both in terms of their
operations and financial status. This puts NGOs in a weaker position to engage with government
because they do not have moral right. Some NGOs lack moral courage to engage with government
and so fear being exposed in the process of engaging government.
Self promotion
some NGOs bend backward to seek publicity. There is also a danger of exaggerating issues inorder
to gain the headlines or capture the attention of the media. Self promotion can also crowd out other
experts and organisations that may have a comparative advantage on the policy issue inquestion.
Government issues
Many advocacy NGOs have governance issues that weaken their capability to influence policy, like
lack of established structures and systems, and when in place they are still weak the Internal
wrangles which erode the capacity of an individual NGO or NGOs as a sector to engage in policy

3
issues. Wrangles and conflict divert energies and resources from focusing on strategic issues to self
preservation or survival.
Lack of content
NGOs due to several reasons often lack content with the exception of a few specialised ones or
international NGOs that are well funded and structured. As a matter of fact, they are limited when it
comes to presenting policy alternatives or to project the likely negative effects of their proposals in
the long term.
External constraints
Donor agencies influence
At times pressure from the donors dictates the pace and direction of NGO policy enaggement.
Because policy engagement is costly, NGOs have to depend on donor support and this compromises
their independence and also places them in a suspicious position before government.
Constraining legal and operational environments
In most cases governments protect their interests, on the other hand NGOs want to exercise their
constitutional rights but find the laws restricting. The NGO Act of 2006 focuses on registration than
providing space and recognition for mutual partnership between local governments and CSOs in the
development process. It largely appears like CSOs are considered by governments bas structure to
justify the existence of democratic practices on paper.
Lack of clear boundaries
The NGO sector is not clear. The 3 sector overlap and at times officials in one sector are the same in
the other. This makes it difficult for NGOs to objectively analyse and criticize government policies.
In the advert of Global fund to fight malaria,. HIV/AIDS and others, many government officila
quickly formed NGOs or aligned themselves with existing ones for the purpose of having easy
access to the funds thus NGOs find it hard to raise issues with government that Global fund was
being mismanaged.
Access to public information
Whereas there is a law providing for access to public information, Access to public infornation Act
2005, in practice access is not easy. Often the process is long and cumbersome that some NGOs
give up.
Government interference
Some receive funding from governments and often have to compete among themselves for it. This
erodes their collaborative capacity in policy advocacy issues but also create an avenue for
government to influence their priorities, programmes and activities.

4
Attempted solutions
i. Win Government trust
ii. Promote healthy relations with government to be seen as stakeholders in development
iii. Capacity enhancement through training links with academic istitutions, research
organisations and others like amended individual experts.
iv. Proposing alternative legislation
v. Self regulation
vi. Building alliances, coalition or networks
Decentralization and role of NGOs
Public sector reform in Africa through decentralising central government authority from the centre
to the local level has been a major policy direction of both donors and national governments in
recent years.

Given the current trend for decentralisation it is vital that NGOs develop appropriate strategies for
working with decentralised government in supporting greater democracy in local governance. And
while there has been much discussion of the concept of ‘good governance’ in aid policy, this has
focused on national rather than local levels of government.
The analysis of the interrelationships between non-governmental development NGOs and
decentralised government needs to be underpinned with a sound understanding of the wider context
of state–civil society relations in Africa. There are important issues which relate specifically to
Africa and need to be highlighted at the outset of this report.

Decentralisation is a broad term referring to the transfer of political authority from the centre to the
local level. In order for NGOs to engage strategically with decentralised government, rather than in
an ad hoc manner as is commonly the case, they need to recognise the specific roles and authority
of different government bodies at the district level and below, and how these to relate to central
government on the one hand and local civil society on the other. Only then can they identify the
institutional channels by which NGOs can engage with government at the sub-national level.
Objectives of decentralization
 Transfer of real power to districts and other lower level governments and thus reduce the
workload on remote and under resourced central governmental officials.
 Bring political and administrative control over services to point where they are actually
delivered, thereby improving accountability and effectiveness; promoting ppeople’s feeling
of ownership of projects and programs executed in their areas.

5
  Free local managers from central constraints and as a long term goal, allow them develop
organizational structures tailored to local circumstances.
 Improve financial accountability and responsibility by establishing a clear link between the
payment of taxes and the provision of services they finance.
 Improve the capacity of councils to plan, finance and manage the delivery of services in
their constituencies.
 Protect the constitution and other laws of Uganda to promote democratic governance.
 Ensure the implementation and compliance with Government policy.

Overview of different types of decentralization in Africa.

Decentralisation has taken many different forms in Africa. However, it is possible to identify two
major types of decentralisation;
i. Administrative Decentralization
ii. Political Decentralization
Each country has its own unique combination of central and local government powers and in
practice decentralisation may involve a combination of both.
Political Decentralization
Political decentralization aims to give citizens or their elected representatives more power in public
decision-making. It is often associated with pluralistic politics and representative government, but it
can also support democratization by giving citizens, or their representatives, more influence in the
formulation and implementation of policies. Advocates of political decentralization assume that
decisions made with greater participation will be better informed and more relevant to diverse
interests in society than those made only by national political authorities. The concept implies that
the selection of representatives from local electoral jurisdictions allows citizens to know better their
political representatives and allows elected officials to know better the needs and desires of their
constituents.

Political decentralization often requires constitutional or statutory reforms, the development of

pluralistic political parties, the strengthening of legislatures, creation of local political units, and the
encouragement of effective public interest groups.

Administrative Decentralization

Administrative decentralization seeks to redistribute authority, responsibility and financial resources

for providing public services among different levels of government. It is the transfer of

6
responsibility for the planning, financing and management of certain public functions from the
central government and its agencies to field units of government agencies, subordinate units or
levels of government, semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations, or area-wide, regional or
functional authorities.

The three major forms of administrative decentralization include;

i) Deconcentration. This is often considered to be the weakest form of decentralization

and is used most frequently in unitary states. It redistributes decision making authority
and financial and management responsibilities among different levels of the central
government. It can merely shift responsibilities from central government officials in the
capital city to those working in regions, provinces or districts, or it can create strong
field administration or local administrative capacity under the supervision of central
government ministries.

There are various forms of deconcentration. One key issue concerns the authority and co- ordination
between different line ministries. Most line ministries, such as agriculture or education, have some
form of sub-national organisation but these are not necessarily directly related to sub-divisions
within the administration. For example, administrative districts and agricultural districts may not
have the same boundaries, as is the case in Botswana.

Authority over field officers of line ministries may lie within the line ministry or be held by the
district commissioner, or there may be a combination of both. Many countries have district
development committees whose purpose is to co-ordinate the initiatives of various ministries.

ii) Delegation. This is a more extensive form of decentralization. Through delegation

central governments transfer responsibility for decision-making and administration of
public functions to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly controlled by the central
government, but ultimately accountable to it. Governments delegate responsibilities
when they create public enterprises or corporations, housing authorities, transportation
authorities, special service districts, semi-autonomous school districts, regional
development corporations, or special project implementation units. Usually these
organizations have a great deal of discretion in decision-making. They may be exempt
from constraints on regular civil service personnel and may be able to charge users
directly for services.

7
 iii) Devolution. This is the third type of administrative decentralization. When governments
devolve functions, they transfer authority for decision-making, finance, and management
to quasi-autonomous units of local government with corporate status.

By contrast, refers to the transfer of central government authority to a form of representative local
government body which maintains some degree of legal autonomy from central government. The
local government body is made up of representatives who have the authority to make decisions on
various public matters. District councils and town councils, made up of elected councilors, are the
most common form of devolved local government.
Other types of decentralization
Fiscal Decentralization
Financial responsibility is a core component of decentralization. If local governments and private
organizations are to carry out decentralized functions effectively, they must have an adequate level
of revenues, either raised locally or transferred from the central government as well as the authority
to make decisions about expenditures. Fiscal decentralization can take many forms, including

a) Self-financing or cost recovery through user charges

b) Co-financing or co-production arrangements through which the users participate in providing

services and infrastructure through monetary or labor contributions

c) Expansion of local revenues through property or sales taxes, or indirect charges

d) Intergovernmental transfers that shift general revenues from taxes collected by the central
government to local governments for general or specific uses

e) Authorization of municipal borrowing and the mobilization of either national or local government
resources through loan guarantees. In many developing countries local governments or
administrative units possess the legal authority to impose taxes, but the tax base is so weak and the
dependence on central government subsidies so ingrained that no attempt is made to exercise that
authority.

Economic or Market Decentralization

The most complete forms of decentralization from a government's perspective are privatization and
deregulation because they shift responsibility for functions from the public to the private sector.

8
Privatization and deregulation are usually, but not always, accompanied by economic liberalization
and market development policies. They allow functions that had been primarily or exclusively the
responsibility of government to be carried out by businesses, community groups, cooperatives,
private voluntary associations, and other non-government organizations.

i) Privatization. Privatization can range in scope from leaving the provision of goods and
services entirely to the free operation of the market to "public-private partnerships" in
which government and the private sector cooperate to provide services or infrastructure.
Privatization can include:

a) Allowing private enterprises to perform functions that had previously been

monopolized by government

b) Contracting out the provision or management of public services or facilities to

commercial enterprises indeed, there is a wide range of possible ways in which
function can be organized and many examples of within public sector and public-
private institutional forms, particularly in infrastructure

c) Financing public sector programs through the capital market (with adequate
regulation or measures to prevent situations where the central government bears the
risk for this borrowing) and allowing private organizations to participate.

d) Transferring responsibility for providing services from the public to the private
sector through the divestiture of state-owned enterprises.

ii) Deregulation. Deregulation reduces the legal constraints on private participation in

service provision or allows competition among private suppliers for services that in the
past had been provided by the government or by regulated monopolies. In recent years
privatization and deregulation have become more attractive alternatives to governments
in developing countries. Local governments are also privatizing by contracting out
service provision or administration.

Decentralisation in Uganda
For more than a decade, Uganda has been developing one of the most radical programmes of
devolution in Africa. It has resulted in a major reform of the public sector away from central
government control to that of empowering district councils, which are made up of elected

9
representatives. The foundation for decentralisation began during the civil war in Uganda, which
took place between 1981 and 1986. During this period the National Resistance Movement (NRM)
established resistance councils (RCs) in the areas they had liberated. The RCs were elected peoples’
councils charged with governing the areas under their jurisdiction, and replaced the former local
government system which had been highly centralised. The Rcs operated on a tiered system, the
smallest being the ward or neighbourhood level and going through to the district level (Kisakye
1996).

When the NRM came to power in 1986 it extended the RCs from village to district levels
throughout the country. Their position as the foundation of the local government system was
formalised in 1987 and they were given wide ranging powers. Since 1986, the NRM government
has been pushing through various stages of a long-term process of decentralisation.
Decentralisation was a major theme in the new Constitution of 1995 and the 1997 Local
Government Act was enacted in order to bring about the provisions made in the Constitution
(Government of Uganda 1997).

Key features of decentralisation in Uganda are the devolution of responsibility for political,
administrative and financial decision-making (Villadsen 1996).

Firstly, the political head of the district is the Chairman of the District Council. This is an elected
representative whereas previously it was the District Administrator, a central government appointee,
who was the head of the district.

Secondly, an integrated local government administration has been established, headed by a Chief
Administrative Officer, which gives the District Council overall responsibility for the administration
of services in the district. Staff from different line ministries working in the district are now
accountable firstly to the district council, not their central ministries. Similarly, district development
planning is now the responsibility of the district council, and the district development committees
which previously co-ordinated district planning has been abolished.

Thirdly, the Ugandan Government has been concerned that control over finances should also been
decentralised. It has recognised that, while local authorities will continue to be dependent on
financial transfers from central government, it is necessary to ensure that local autonomy is not

10
undermined. In order to do this, the government set up a system whereby every district council
receives an unconditional block grant to cover recurrent expenditure and to run decentralised
services Good progress has been made but by the end of 1997 only some 20% of recurrent
expenditure or 2% of GDP had been placed under the control of local governments. The
government now wants to extend this decentralisation to development funds and is investigating
how can development funds be transferred to local authorities to be used according to their own
priorities rather than those of central ministries (Government of Uganda 1997). Initially only about
one-third of development expenditure is being decentralised. The main problem which the
government faces is to develop financial and managerial capacity at the district level.
Botswana
Decentralisation in Botswana has been characterised by deconcentration of power from central
government to the district administration and field officers of central ministries, with limited
decision-making powers devolved to elected local authorities.

After Independence in 1966, the district councils were established and assumed control over many
of the responsibilities of the district commissioners and the traditional authorities. However, within
a few years the central government became disillusioned with the inefficiency and ineffectiveness
of the councils. In addition, following the 1969 local elections in which the opposition parties made
significant gains at the expense of the ruling Botswana Democratic Party, the government was also
concerned not to let district or town councils become centres of opposition. The district
administration was subsequently strengthened at the expense of the councils. For example, the
district development committees, which were established in 1971, were placed under the
chairmanship of the district commissioner, not the council secretary. The district administration has
continued to be strengthened vis-à-vis the councils.

NGO Experiences of Working with Decentralised Government

The great diversity of decentralisation means that there is a wide range of government bodies or
committees that NGOs may usefully work with. In some countries, the major responsibility for
sectoral development may lie with district councils, while in others it lies with the district field
offices of line ministries. Thus NGO–government collaboration at the district level will take many
different forms depending on the structure of decentralised government.

NGOs need to understand these structures and the linkages between institutions in order to decide

11
which government bodies they should seek to work with or support, or not to work with as the case
may be. This calls for an analysis of informal as well as formal links between government
institutions since the actual relationships between them may be somewhat different to those
envisaged in government decentralisation policy. For example, while the district development
committee may on paper be the key body for district development planning and for co-ordinating
development implementation, in practice it may be a rather ineffective institution which carries little
weight with the different line ministries or local authority.

The experiences of NGOs and decentralised government working together have been mixed and not
much has been documented. Some NGOs have had very constructive working relationships with
decentralised government. However, these tend to be examples of individual NGOs seeking
partnerships with particular decentralised government bodies in order to implement sectoral
programmes. There is less evidence of NGOs engaging with decentralised government in any co-
ordinated manner to ensure that the NGO sector as a whole is involved in district level (and below)
development planning processes. The initiative to collaborate with government is very much left to
individual NGOs.

However, while few NGOs appear to have any specific policy on working with decentralised
government, the realities of rural service provision is such that most NGOs involved will work
intimately with government officers and institutions at the local level whether they like it or not.
Even if NGOs do not regard decentralised government agencies as partners with which they should
collaborate, they will still have frequent, day-to-day interaction with government. For example,
government officers will need to be informed of project activities, which could include field officers
of relevant sector ministries, administrators attached to the district council or district
commissioner’s office and members of any district level committees. Likewise, local leaders and
politicians will need to be informed of new activities, and maintaining their goodwill may be critical
for the success of the project. NGO staff may also wish to participate in local level meetings, such
as district or divisional development committees. In addition to these more formal types of
interaction, NGO and government staff are likely to be involved in a whole web of informal
relationships with each other. This may be particularly the case in situations where they constitute a
small group of outsiders in remote rural areas where they are more likely to interact socially with
fellow professionals, whoever they work for, rather than the local population.

12
Examples which illustrate some of the main issues facing NGOs in collaborating with decentralised
government are provided below.

The Zimbabwe examples highlights the distinction between individual NGO initiatives and lack of
overall policy framework for NGO engagement with decentralised development planning.

The next example on the Danish NGO, demonstrates the importance of NGOs themselves having a
clear policy on partnership with government.

Tanzania shows how an international NGO, WaterAid, was able to develop a highly productive
relationship with various levels of the Tanzania government in the context of a rural water supply
programme. This is followed by an example which looks at the relationship between an
international NGO and a devolved local council which illustrates how the community
empowerment programme promoted by the NGO was seen by the council as a threat to its own
political popularity and legitimacy.

The final example, again from Zimbabwe, shows how the involvement of an NGO with a district
council was through providing technical advice and advocacy, rather than project funding.

Key area of empowerment to local governments by the Act

a) Planning, Sec 36 of the local government Act empowers local governments plan for their
councils. This power has been vested in the District Council as District planning Authority.
The district shall make comprehensive and integrated plans, which must incorporate the
plans of lower councils before submission to the National Planning Commission.
b) Financial management, Sec 78 of the Local Government Act provides that local
governments shall have a right and obligation to help them execute their budgets. This
gives them powers over the management of their financial resources from mobilization,
allocation and councils formulate and pass their budgets and then implement it.
c) Laws and regulations, Sec 39 and 40 give powers to the local government councils to make
relevant laws and policies for implementation of decisions. However, these laws must not
be inconsistent with the constitution and the Act.
d) Personnel, a district has powers to appoint a District Service Commission which shall
appoint all employees of the District. DSC has the mandate to recruit, confirm. Promote

13
 discipline and fire all employees in the service of the local governments. Personnel
decentralization is meant to create commitment on the part of the civil servants and make
them responsive in the implementation of council plans.

Implications
 Establish a rationale and unified service delivery system at the district level.
 Promote greater involvement of communities and in turn lead to plans appropriate to local
needs and priorities / problems.
 Reduce duplication of services and costs by relating responsibilities to a defined catchment
population.
 Reduce inequalities through selective allocation of resources.
 Integrate government, private section and NGO activities.
 Promote inter sectoral collaboration at the local government levels.
 Strengthen national policy and planning by releasing ministry staff from administrative and
other routine responsibilities.
 Improve and implementation of programs by reducing centralized control over local
administrative matters.
 Reduce problems and delays caused by long distance and poor communication.

Legal framework of the decentralization policy

The constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995
This gave decentralization policy an additional dimension highlighting principles of transferring
powers, functions, and responsibilities from the central government to local government units. It
further emphasized the need for people’s participation and democratic control in decision making,
and the need for sound financial base for local government with reliable sources of revenue.
The Local Government Act 1997
It consolidated the political empowerment by legally and institutionally transferring the power,
which had been at the centre to local governments. Sec 10 of the local government Act stipulates
that each local government is the highest political authority in its area of jurisdiction and shall
have legislative and executive powers to be exercised in accordance with the constitution and the
Local Government Act.
Sec 31 stipulates that local government shall;
a) Exercise all political and executive powers and functions

14
 b) Deliver services as they deem fit

With decentralization the major roles of the centre remain coordination, advocacy, and policy
development, technical support, provision of standards and monitoring.
Roles played by NGOs in relation to decentralization
 Implementation of government initiated programs. In addition to their own initiated
programs, since mid 1990’s NGO’s operating in specific districts have subcontracted to
implement government initiated and funded programs. These include poverty alleviation
program (PAP), Entandikwa, Nutrition and Early Childhood Development Project and etc.
 Capacity building through training. Since NGO’s have the expertise in participatory
methods which are crucial for decentralized service delivery, they have played a big role in
facilitating local governments. Organizations such as Community Development resource
network (CDRN) have trained local government staff in participatory methodologies.
CDRN has been contacted by the NECDP top train implementers both in local
governments and in NGO’s / CBO’s.
 Civic education. NGO’s have played a big role in educating the masses about their
political rights through civic education which is primarily a task of civil society. NGO’s
such as ACFODE, CASE international etc have since 1994 participated in educating the
people about voting and voting procedures in local, parliament and presidential elections.
In this way they empower grassroots people to hold their leaders accountable and also to
participate in the democratic governance process. However, NGO’s role in this field tends
to be driven by donor and government’s funds availability. There is a tendency to become
active when elections are about to be held, and to stop almost immediately after.
 Building grassroots leadership structures. The big NGO’s like UCAA, NAWOU have
facilitated the birth, growth and development of smaller civil society organizations (CSO’s)
mainly for self help activities. Through such CSO’s, women, youth, and others have
attained leadership and organizational skills. This has prepared them to take up bigger roles
in local government structures like councils and statutory bodies. However, participation of
these groups in local governance is still left to individual members of a given CBO.
 Joint planning and incorporating NGO plans into local government plans, the Local
Government Act 1997 empowers the chairperson of a District Technical Planning
Committee (DTPC) to incorporate any other persons in the DTPC. In this way a number of
NGO’s have jointly planned with local governments even lending their expertise. These
include plan international in Luwero, Kamuli and Tororo. Besides, NGO’s like plan

15
 international has gone further to fund and implement projects like school construction and
on the hand them over to local governments after completion.
 Research, information dissemination and advocacy. A number of NGO’s are involved
in conducting studies on issues of concern to decentralized governance. Such information
is utilized to advocate for certain programs. E.g. FOWODE has been actively involved in
gender budget review studies with various districts. The findings from these studies are
used to advocate for gender equity in resource allocation in both local and central
governments.
 Watchdogs on resource utilization in local governments. The Uganda Debt Network
(UDN) has spearheaded the formation of grassroots committees to monitor the utilization
of debt relief resources, and anti corruption campaigns in various districts. In this way,
NGO facilitate the grassroots people to hold their leaders accountable and to ensure that
resources reach the intended beneficiaries.

Challenges to NGO participation in the decentralization process

 While NGO’s continue to play a crucial role, the face a number of challenges ranging from
their own internal weaknesses to structural issues. A number of NGO’s do not publicize
their work and there is limited information about what they can or cannot offer. As a result
there is a tendency among local government officials to distrust them.
 NGOs tend to get it alone. They are faced with a challenge of little interaction / networking
with another, leading to duplication in some cases. The competition for resources among
NGO’s and the private sector in a way limits the capacity of NGO operating in the same
area to act as one. This is being overcome through formation of district NGO networks.
 The NGO sector in Uganda is relatively young with some of the NGOs not having a clear
vision, mission or objectives. As a result, there is poor governance in the NGO’s
themselves, making it harder to influence governance in local governments. While a local
government lacks skilled manpower in some fields, the NGOs are not nay better. Given the
uncertain funding of most local NGOs, they are reluctant to recruit and retain skilled
manpower for a long time.

16
17