
Video Player is loading.
Uganda’s National Development Plan: Here’s what worked well & what didn't
Uganda’s National Development Plan is the second in a series of six 5-year plans aimed at achieving Vision 2040. The goal of this plan is to propel the country into middle income status by 2020 with a per capita income of USD1,033.
Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:50:00 GMT
Disclaimer: The following content is generated automatically by a GPT AI and may not be accurate. To verify the details, please watch the video
AI Generated Summary
- Key focal points of the National Development Plan include growth areas in agriculture, minerals, oil and gas, and tourism, supported by infrastructure and human capital development initiatives.
- Challenges faced in the first National Development Plan included project implementation issues and capacity constraints, as well as alignment with the Millennium Development Goals.
- Issues in the second National Development Plan, NDP II, include project execution delays, governance gaps in fund utilization, and accountability issues in financial management.
Uganda's National Development Plan is the second in a series of six five-year plans aimed at achieving Vision 2040. The goal of this plan is to propel the country into middle income status by 2020 with a per capita income of $1,033. To help understand how this will be realized, David Walakira, Policy Analyst and Development Economist in Uganda, joined CNBC Africa for an in-depth discussion. Walakira highlighted the key focal points of the National Development Plan, which include key growth areas in agriculture, minerals, oil and gas, and tourism, supported by infrastructure and human capital development initiatives.
Reflecting on the challenges faced in the first National Development Plan, Walakira pointed out project implementation challenges and the lack of capacity in various sectors as some of the key issues. Additionally, alignment with the Millennium Development Goals was identified as an area that did not work out well. Despite these challenges, the second National Development Plan, NDP II, made progress on several development indicators, with 10 out of 15 indicators on track and four above targets. However, the poverty indicator showed regression, with the poverty rate increasing from 19.4% to 21.7% instead of the targeted 14% by the end of 2020.
One significant issue highlighted was the execution of core projects, with only 22 out of 42 projects in NDP II taking off as planned. Financial allocation, though exceeding the target, raised questions about the transparency and governance of fund utilization. While more money was allocated, only 17% of projects were on schedule, revealing governance gaps and accountability issues within the system. Walakira emphasized that the accountability cycle in Uganda is incomplete, with projects not thoroughly debated in parliament or subjected to proper scrutiny.
The interview raised concerns about the utilization of funds in line with the development goals outlined in the National Development Plan. The discrepancy between allocated funds and project implementation underscores the need for better governance and accountability mechanisms in the country. Moving forward, addressing capacity constraints, improving project execution, and enhancing transparency in financial management will be crucial to achieving Uganda's development objectives.
In conclusion, the challenges and lessons learned from the National Development Plan underscore the importance of evaluating past performances to enhance future planning and implementation strategies. By addressing governance issues, improving capacity, and ensuring transparency in fund utilization, Uganda can better navigate its path towards sustainable development and economic growth.