Does FY 2021/2022 Budget guarantee progress in gender, equity compliance? 

On Thursday, President Museveni’s government presented the Financial Year 2021/22 National Budget. We should be interested in the estimate of income and expenditure by the State because it is government’s commitment to allocate resources to particular services and outputs and to raise those resources in a responsible manner. 

At the Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE), our attention is drawn to the National Budget precisely because it matters to the extent that we are interested in gender and equity compliance by government in respect of the Budget.

Uganda has made strides in gender and equity compliance since the enactment of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA, 2015) with the national score currently standing at 66 per cent. The law obliges ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) and local governments to ensure measures are taken in their plans and budgets to make possible equal opportunities for men, women, persons with disabilities and other marginalised groups. 

Compliance
For Financial Year 2021/2022, a sizable percentage (91.8 per cent) of the ministerial policy statements (MPSs) from the ministries, departments and agencies were assessed for compliance. However, of these, 13 votes did not attain the mandatory 50 per cent minimum mark and seven of those did not even submit their MPSs for assessment. Only eight out of 18 programmes were assessed for compliance.
 
Every Financial Year, all sectors, MDAs and local governments are required by law to submit their budget framework papers (BFPs), and ministerial policy statements by November 15 and March 15 respectively to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) for assessment.  

However, the submission of different sets of results by EOC to ministry of Finance at varying times points to delays in submission by votes. As such, the quality of the assessment is compromised owing to the fact that submission deadlines to ministry of Finance and Parliament still have to be honoured. 

Lack of a clear legal provision for non-compliance to gender and equity requirements undermines the inclusive development agenda. This does not only constrain the country’s efforts towards achieving the UN Sustainable Goals 5 and 10: gender equality and reduced inequalities respectively, but also widens the pre-existing inequalities in our societies. 

Over the past six years, approximately 9-12 per cent of the votes have scored below the minimum 50 per cent mark on first assessment and yet wiggled themselves out of it through the re-assessment processes. 

The apparent laxity to strictly adhere to gender and equity requirements by some of the entities at central and local government level is largely attributed to the lack of deterrent sanctions for non-compliance.
 
How then does the law treat noncompliance? What happens to those that have repeatedly failed to comply? In accordance with section 78 of the PFMA, Parliament recommends that accounting officers of votes whose score is below 50 per cent make detailed explanations to the House and their appropriation withheld until necessary scores are attained. 

Just like any examination, scores given on the first assessment cannot be altered because it defeats its purpose. Although Section 79 expounds on the various offences; there is still lack of clarity on the sanctions for non-compliance specifically on the gender and equity provisions.

Since the FY 2017/2018, government has been undergoing a gradual shift in programming; from the output budgeting system to the programme budgeting system. While it is clear, that performance measurement will now be based on 18 development programmes, the PFMA, 2015 provisions on gender and equity emphasize compliance against the budget framework papers and ministerial policy statements. 

It is recommended that an adjustment be made to incorporate the new programming. This would be much better alongside the reconfiguration of several financial management systems such as the integrated management system, the chart of accounts that is underway for systematic planning and budgeting. 

I would like to point out fundamental compliance issues that we have encountered through our work of capacity building, monitoring of service delivery and public expenditure tracking. 
First, the rate of gender inclusiveness in the local government plans and budgets compared to six years of implementation is still low. 

Second, in instances of Budget cuts, allocations to gender and equity interventions are affected first and third, assessment of gender responsiveness was cumbersome because the local governments lacked and still lack programme indicators against which progress would be measured like the MDAs and sectors.

Going forward, the gender and equity provisions of the PFMA, 2015 should be synchronised simultaneously with the programme budgeting system and the NDP III programmes. The synchronisation or amendment of the law should also encompass clear legal provisions for non-compliance and delays in submission of plans and budgets. 

Starting this FY 2021/2022, government should consider shifting from the informal resolution mechanisms to formal enforcement actions such as entities that submit late meeting their own costs of assessment. 

Ideally, the assessment schedule should be aligned to the National Budget timeline in order to encourage timely submissions of BFPs and MPSs and permit the assessment adequate time so as to guarantee quality.

Ms Hope Rebecca Twine is the programme manager-Gender and Economic Justice Programme at FOWODE