CARE International in Uganda
Governance Context Analysis of FORESTProgramme
Validation Workshop
4-6 March 2013
1
Contents
1.0Introduction
2.0The FOREST Programme
2.1Programme Intervention Logic
2.2Salient features of the FOREST Programme
3.0An Introduction to CARE’S Governance Context Analysis Guidance Note
3.1Elements to consider when conducting a governance assessment
3.2Key issues to consider when analyzing institutions, spaces and actors
3.3Linkages to the Governance Programme Framework (GPF)
4.0 Governance Context Analysis of the FOREST Programme
4.1 Governance Issues in the Forestry Sector
4.1.1Immediate and underlying causes of the degradation of forest resources in Uganda
4.2Formal Institutions
4.2.1Information gaps on Formal institutions
4.3 Informal Institutions
4.3.1Information gaps on Informal Institutions
4.4.Governance Spaces
4.4.1Invited/ Formal Spaces
4.4.2Claimed Spaces
4.4.3Information gaps on Governance Spaces
4.5.Stakeholders
4.5.1Stakeholders in the Public Arena
4.5.2Civil Society bodies and International Organisations
4.5.3Information gaps on Stakeholders
5.0Supplementary Information from Group Work
5.1Formal institutions most relevant to the programme
5.2Informal Institutions
5.3Governance Spaces for the FOREST Programme
5.4Key Stakeholders for the Forest Programme
6.0Feedback on Governance Context Analysis Tool
7.0Conclusion and Next Steps
Annexes
Annex 1 Workshop – Programme
Annex 2 List of Participants
Annex 3 Institutions
Annex 4 Governance Spaces
1
1.0Introduction
CARE International in Uganda (CIU)with support from CUK recently conducted a 2 day workshop (4 - 6 March 2013) in Kampala to review its Forest Resources Sector Transparency (FOREST) Programme Document. The workshop that wasattended by CIU staff and its partners under the new FOREST programme had two main objectives:
- To further improve the quality of the governance context analysis and programme design of the final draft of the FOREST programme document; and
- To test the appropriateness and usefulness of the CIU Governance Context Analysis Guidance Note in the above process.
Theworkshop included presentations on the FOREST Programme Design; CARE’s Governance Context Analysis Tool; Governance Context of the Forestry Sector and key elements of the governance components in this sector. The participatory approach adopted provided the workshop participantsthe opportunity to review and discuss the proposed programme design taking into account the governance issues affecting the Forestry Sector in Uganda. The participants were specifically tasked with checking the accurateness, comprehensiveness and consistencyof the design document using the CIUK analytical framework.
While the workshop generated a lot of supplementary information, it is envisaged that further actions will be required by both CIU and its implementing partners to fill knowledge gapson governance issues in the Forestry sector and identify additional opportunities for leverage. It was also agreed that due to time constraints and the limitations of a workshop setting, the partners would within their organisations, undertake a more in-depthanalysis of the institutions, spaces and actorsrelevant to their specific interventions in order to facilitate a more targeted approach.
2.0The FOREST Programme[1]
The FOREST Programme will be implemented by CIU in partnership with a fewnational CSOs.At present, PANOS, ACODE, ACCU, EA, UOBDU and JESE have been asked to submit their project proposals. The 5 year programme (2013-2017) will be supported by CARE Danmark with resources from DANIDA’s NGO framework funding.
Building upon CIU’s previous interventions, the FOREST programme will support civil society and the media to influence further changes in the governance and management of the forestry sector. The overall objective for the programme will be to increase transparency, accountability and responsiveness in forest governance for the benefit of poor Ugandan citizens. The FOREST programme will therefore support civil society organisations (CSOs) and the media to:
•empower poor natural resource dependant citizens toparticipate in forest governance;
•monitor implementation of forest policies and laws; and
•advocate for fair and appropriate forest laws and regulations at the national and global level.
In order to do this effectively, CSOs must improve their own legitimacy, accountability and transparency. CSOs must also strengthen their internal coordination mechanisms and collaboration with other stakeholders, and be prepared to link their efforts to national and international initiatives focusing on the improvement of forest governance.
2.1Programme Intervention Logic
Below is a summary of the programme design - the proposed strategies and expected outcomes.
Theory of Change: If CARE supports strategic CS partners interested in forest governance, if these partners plan, coordinate and build key technical capacities, if the partners work to strengthen their capacities to represent and empower interest groups…. Then CSOs will increase their legitimacy and ability to effectively represent the interests of poor forest dependant citizens, then CSOs will have a credible legitimate and strong voice in collaboration and coordination with other key stakeholders, then CSO will effectively monitor corruption which will lead to appropriate forestry laws and regulations being developed and implemented and poor and vulnerable citizens participating and benefiting from good governance in the forestry sector.
2.2Salient features of the FOREST Programme
Building synergies between partner initiatives.
Increased learning vertically and horizontally.
Networking and collaboration.
Strong focus on learning, reflection and sharing beyond the borders of Uganda.
Strengthening complementary measures aimed at fostering transparency and/or increasing citizens’ awareness.
1
3.0An Introduction to CARE’S Governance Context Analysis Guidance Note
Governance is steadily gaining ground in CARE’s work, having been identified as an underlying cause of poverty and social injustice; a core element of development; and a key component therefore of CARE’s theories of change (TOC). To this effect, CARE has recently developed a Governance Context Analysis Guidance note to supplement its Governance Programming Framework (GPF), in order to support a more systematic assessment and integration of governance issues in its programming.
It is believed that a sound governance analysis at country and/or programme level will increase the opportunities to design strategies and programmes that effectively address barriers and deliver sustainable change in the diverse contexts in which CARE operates. In addition to traditional situational analyses, CARE is now encouraging its country offices (COs) to undertake political economy (PE) analyses. This will enable COs gain a nuanced understanding of the political factors i.e. the power dynamics, underlying interests, incentives and institutions that promote or undermine change within specific sectors. PE analyses reduce reliance on technical fixes and the risk therefore of establishing programmes that are neither effective nor strategic.
3.1Elements to consider when conducting a governance assessment
CARE’s governancecontext analytical framework will support a closer examination of the institutions, actors and practices that regulate specific sectors and identification of factors that influence performance. The framework includes an analysis of:
1.Institutions: to examine the “rules of the game”; and to understand the enabling (or disabling) environment i.e. the factors that may favor or affect the implementation of formal rules. The analysis should include both formal institutions[2]and informal institutions[3].
2.Governance Spaces: to examine the opportunities for interaction and participation of different actors in “invited” and “claimed” spaces.
3.Stakeholders/ key actors: to obtain an appreciation of the different types of actors, power dynamics and differing incentives and constraints that may promote or undermine change/ reforms.
3.2Key issues to consider when analyzing institutions, spaces and actors
There is frequently tension between formal and informal rules.
Informal rules normally regulate how things happen, particularly where governance structures are weak.
Institutional reforms succeed only when key actors have an incentive to make them succeed.
When their interests are threatened, some actors will frustrate and undermine reform.
3.3Linkages to the Governance Programme Framework (GPF)
The GPF indicates the domains of changewhich CARE believes are required to achieve equitable and sustainable development. It is expected therefore that the governance componentsof any CARE programme should aim to achieve the changes represented in the GPF Pyramid below. The GPF needs to be used in conjunction with a thorough analysis of the governance context (using the Governance Context Analysis Guidance note). The latter should include a) understanding the formal and informal structures and norms that govern how power is exercised; b) considerations of the most effective and legitimate ways of engaging with the context; and c) an assessment of the risks involved in intervening.
Points to remember when applying the GPF Pyramid
The GPF pyramid is not exclusive but provides a framework of possible areas of intervention for programmes addressing Governance issues.
The GPF describes the changes aimed for, but not how these changes will be achieved.
Depending on the context, the domains are likely to be overlapping, interdependent and dynamic.
Change needs to take place and be sustained in all three domains to achieve impact.
Horizontal and vertical linkages i.e. how domains operate at local, national and global level are equally important.
Social groups are heterogenous – differentactors have differential power and interests.
Any challenge to the prevailing patterns of governance is likely to trigger resistance by those with something to lose.
1
4.0 Governance Context Analysis of the FOREST Programme
The presentation of the desk review of the FOREST programme document was preceded by a short summary of the operating governance environment at the macro-level[4]. The objective of this analysiswas to increase participants’ appreciation of the inherent complexity of the governance challenges by illustrating the linkages between governance issues at the macro leveland at the sector level. The analysis sought to provide some insightson some of the systemic constraints, incentives and the vested interests of multiple actors that have undermined the implementation of institutional reforms in different sectors, the Forestry sector inclusive.
Like many emerging democracies, Uganda has made significant progress in improving its governance systems, but there remains an evident dichotomybetween the formal and informal institutions in Uganda. The broader governance context in Uganda presents a complex hybrid of elements comprising of bothdriversand constraints for good governance. While considerable effort has gone into effecting institutional reforms, articulating a development agenda and developing a constitutional framework that espouses democratic principles, human rights and freedoms, accountability, rule of law and state-society reciprocity; there are also indicators of the increasing centralisation of power, wide spread use of a patronage system, shrinking of civic space andpress freedoms; impunity and occasional disregard of the rules.
Political economy analysesundertaken by different analysts[5] suggest that the overarching challenges for governance in Uganda today largely stem from a neo-patrimonial state inherited from Uganda’s colonial history. Post colonial governments have continuously struggled to balance the institutionalization of good governance principleswith competing interests of legitimacy and political survival. Political incentives which haveperpetuated the neo-patrimonial power structure and the fusion of public and private domainsin contemporary Uganda have generated governance deficits which from time to time extend and influence the management of public institutions. Political considerations have for example contributed to theweakeningand subordination of formal institutions of governance to the interests of a very powerful executive; the exclusion of divergent opinions; declining political and social accountability and transparency from the political elite and public institutions respectively;non-compliance andweak law enforcement; and subsequently, escalating corruption and inefficient delivery of social services. In the Forestry sector for example, private interests have superseded public interests and the failure to implement institutional reforms and the continued encroachment of forests is linked to the political and economic goals of a powerful elite.
4.1 Governance Issues in the Forestry Sector
This section presents a summary of the findings of the desk review of the FOREST Programme Design Document. The CIU governance context analysis tool was used to review the design document in order to assess the breadth of its governance assessment and to identify any knowledge gaps.The reviewestablished that the document was fairly thorough in its analysis of the governance issues affecting the Forestry sector and had identified both the enablers and constraints for the implementation of reforms in the sector, albeit with a few gaps.
4.1.1Immediate and underlying causes of the degradation of forest resources in Uganda
The challenges being experienced in the Forestry sector are a consequence of the broader development challengesfacing the country. Rapid population growth, limited economic opportunities, wide spread poverty and urbanization have generated a high demand for agriculturalland, housing, fuel wood and timber. Although the National Development Plan underscores the important role of the forestry sector to the attainment of the country’s development goals, the policy emphasis on economic growth and foreign investment has contributed to the conversion of forests into industrial land and thereby increasing threats to biodiversity as well as the livelihoods of forest dependant communities. .
Even though many actors and factors have contributed to the problem, the inability to curb the degradation of forests is attributed to gaps in stewardship and the manner in which forest resources are managed. Forest governance in Uganda as elaborated below is characterized by a lackof transparency and accountability, insufficient participation of key stakeholders in decision-making processes and poor co-ordination of forest management agencies. These have contributed to the high levels of corruption in the sector; illegal logging; illegal and unplanned forest conversion and conflicts over ownership and access rights.
4.2Formal Institutions
Funding:The analysis indicates that the sector mainly depends on donor support and funds from the central government as well as revenues generated from fees. There however has been a decline in budgetary allocations from 2.4% (2004/5) to 1.9% (2011/12) – an indicator of the declining prioritization of the sector. Further budget shortfalls are expected due to the withdrawal of some major donors on account of the failure to implement reforms and gross misappropriation of funds. Furthermore, funding does not correspond with the decentralized roles and responsibilities and local governments are as a result hardly receiving any funding.
Legal and Regulatory framework:There is a legal and policy framework in place to guide the sustainable management of forest resources in Uganda and includes: i) the key legislation and national policies that have been introduced by the Government of Uganda (GoU) on forests, wetlands, wildlife, land, oil & gasii) international instruments on environmental protection that have been ratified by GoU; and iii) constitutional provisions supporting citizen rights and participation in forest governance (see annex 2).
Policy Implementation:Unfortunately, the anticipated outcomes have not been realised as evident by the poor implementation of policy reforms and enforcement of forestry laws. Key obstacles identified include both capacity and political economy issues:
- inadequate financing (particularly at the local government level) to support the effective administration of forests as well as poor financial management
- weak technical capacitiesincludinginsufficient data/ knowledge of forest boundaries and poor information management systems within the sector; and hence and inability of forest management agencies to administer and monitor forest tenure and resources
- overlapping roles and poor co-ordination between the various agencies mandated to manage forest resources
- lack of clarity and consistency within and between laws in related sectors (forestry, agriculture and energy) – not always advancing common objectives
- flaws within the policy framework with some of the laws being described as unrealistic and unenforceable
- the narrow interests of private individuals and high level corruption perpetuated by some actors (politicians, bureaucrats/ resource managers/ forest authorities and local leaders) with vested political and economic interests
- slow translation of policy into action particularly in relation to those provisions aimed at strengthening accountability mechanisms and protecting the rights of forest dependant communities i.e. collaborative forest governance arrangements.
Corruption and rent seeking:Circumventing of formal rules has created an environment for both grand corruption and rent seeking in the forest sector. The different types of corruption cited include: undue influence from the political elite, administrative corruption, procurement for kick-backs and misappropriation of funds and revenue. Corruption is most prevalent in issuance of logging permits, valuation of timber, collection of revenue from timber sales and conversion / de-gazetting of forest reserves and provision of illegal land titles.
Impact of corruption:The analysis shows that corruption in the forest sector has led to huge economic losses. Illegal logging and timber trade is costing government huge revenue/tax losses;affecting provision of social services; affecting livelihoods of resource adjacent communities; and is likely to lead to negative long term economic impacts caused by environmental degradation and climate change.
4.2.1Information gaps on Formal institutions
- Level of Public support for reforms: What impact if any, has the poor implementation of reforms had on current expectations of stakeholders? This is important for establishing potential public support for programme interventions in view of previous experiences.
- Extent of regulatory proliferation: While the overlapping jurisdictions have been identified as a key challenge for the proper co-ordination and enforcement of forestry laws, the analysis does not show where the mis-alignment lies and which areas therefore require reform.
- Feasibility of existing laws: The analysis contends that some parts of the existing legislation are not realistic and/or are inconsistent with other laws/policies; but has not specified the problematic provisions that need to be amended or eliminated. Those rules and regulations in need of reform should be identified.
- Challenges in effecting sanctions: Although the document extensively discusses corruption in the forest sector, there is no mention of any sector specific anti-corruption measures/ sanctions that have been put in place, and if in existence, why they have failed.What is the level of influence of private/ foreign investors on the forestry sector?
- Funding:Where and how are decisions over funding made?
4.3 Informal Institutions
Informal institutions play a major role in determing whether specific interventions succeed or fail.The analysis indicates that informal institutions and the following in particular have been instrumental in undermining the formal governance mechanisms in the forestry sector.