Donors Reject Uganda Budget
May 13, 2004
INTERNATIONAL donors have refused to endorse Uganda’s proposed budget for 2004/5, citing high spending on defence and public administration at the expense of the poverty eradication action plan (PEAP).
By Alfred Wasike
INTERNATIONAL donors have refused to endorse Uganda’s proposed budget for 2004/5, citing high spending on defence and public administration at the expense of the poverty eradication action plan (PEAP).
They questioned the sh30b budget for the referendum on political systems set for next year and the continued financing of mass mobilisation activities despite the current move towards pluralism.
Uganda, with a projected domestic revenue of sh1,823b, a 9% increase over the current fiscal year, wants sh3,359b, a 6% increase compared to this financial year.
The budget is to be read out next month.
The donors made these concerns at a day-long Public Expenditure Review meeting at the Uganda International Conference Centre, Kampala.
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund officials, on behalf of donors, criticised the steep rise in government spending and called for efficiency and an end to corruption.
They praised Uganda for sound economic management that has resulted in economic growth and poverty reduction.
World Bank mission chief in Uganda Grace Yobrudy said, “We will not be able to endorse the draft budget presented to Parliament. We do not find it a convincing reflection of PEAP priorities, and key elements of the budget—defence and public administration—remain too high.â€
Prime minister Apollo Nsibambi said Uganda had made progress in education, health, water/sanitation and roads. He said insecurity in the Great Lakes Region, especially the LRA rebel terror remained a major concern for Uganda, necessitating adequately funded security strategies.
Yobrudy noted, “I would like to begin with defence, a topic which we discussed at length last year. Defence spending rises by 19% to a proposed sh367b in 2004/5, after a 48% increase in the preceding two years. Last year’s 29% increase was presented as a one-off.â€
Finance minister Gerald Ssendaula said, “You and us have come a long way together. Bear with us. This year is very difficult. The revenues are low but the demands are too high. But Uganda has made a lot of progress in very many sectors of the economy.â€
But Yobrudy said though the donors recognised the need for security, particularly in the north, they felt the proposed defence spending increase was unjustified.
He said the donors also doubted whether the management changes identified under the Defence Review would be in place to manage the increase.
She said the increase was not sufficiently targeted towards security in the north.
“In the absence of information on how the classified budget is being used to implement the Defence Review, we are not persuaded that increases of this magnitude are justified.†She wondered if the rise was affordable given competing priorities.
They urged the Government to reconsider the defence provision for 2004/5. They welcomed the planned sector working group on defence.
The donors cited excessive cost of public administration in Uganda, a big public service and bureaucracy and called for a solution.
They called for an efficient public service.
Ends
INTERNATIONAL donors have refused to endorse Uganda’s proposed budget for 2004/5, citing high spending on defence and public administration at the expense of the poverty eradication action plan (PEAP).
They questioned the sh30b budget for the referendum on political systems set for next year and the continued financing of mass mobilisation activities despite the current move towards pluralism.
Uganda, with a projected domestic revenue of sh1,823b, a 9% increase over the current fiscal year, wants sh3,359b, a 6% increase compared to this financial year.
The budget is to be read out next month.
The donors made these concerns at a day-long Public Expenditure Review meeting at the Uganda International Conference Centre, Kampala.
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund officials, on behalf of donors, criticised the steep rise in government spending and called for efficiency and an end to corruption.
They praised Uganda for sound economic management that has resulted in economic growth and poverty reduction.
World Bank mission chief in Uganda Grace Yobrudy said, “We will not be able to endorse the draft budget presented to Parliament. We do not find it a convincing reflection of PEAP priorities, and key elements of the budget—defence and public administration—remain too high.â€
Prime minister Apollo Nsibambi said Uganda had made progress in education, health, water/sanitation and roads. He said insecurity in the Great Lakes Region, especially the LRA rebel terror remained a major concern for Uganda, necessitating adequately funded security strategies.
Yobrudy noted, “I would like to begin with defence, a topic which we discussed at length last year. Defence spending rises by 19% to a proposed sh367b in 2004/5, after a 48% increase in the preceding two years. Last year’s 29% increase was presented as a one-off.â€
Finance minister Gerald Ssendaula said, “You and us have come a long way together. Bear with us. This year is very difficult. The revenues are low but the demands are too high. But Uganda has made a lot of progress in very many sectors of the economy.â€
But Yobrudy said though the donors recognised the need for security, particularly in the north, they felt the proposed defence spending increase was unjustified.
He said the donors also doubted whether the management changes identified under the Defence Review would be in place to manage the increase.
She said the increase was not sufficiently targeted towards security in the north.
“In the absence of information on how the classified budget is being used to implement the Defence Review, we are not persuaded that increases of this magnitude are justified.†She wondered if the rise was affordable given competing priorities.
They urged the Government to reconsider the defence provision for 2004/5. They welcomed the planned sector working group on defence.
The donors cited excessive cost of public administration in Uganda, a big public service and bureaucracy and called for a solution.
They called for an efficient public service.
Ends