Presently, there is a substantial demand for external finance data in Uganda and in many other African countries. This is driven by concerns about the country’s debt sustainability, overall economic landscape, investment choices and the need for monitoring both public and private sector performance. Various stakeholders, including government entities, businesses, investors, media and researchers, rely on external finance data to inform their decisions.

This report is part of a series of data landscaping reports from Development Initiatives (DI), covering Kenya and Uganda. These explore the use by the government and development partners of data derived from aid management platforms and provide insights, recommendations and cross-learning to enhance aid management practices by the national government in the three countries.

You can read this overview and executive summary below, or download the full report.

These reports complement another series of work from DI, also led by national demand, on international finance data and evidence on its most appropriate use in specific development sectors in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda (forthcoming). You can read those country case study reports that consider where aid has been more effective, including trends, the factors that unlock the value of aid and the challenges that lie ahead.

The paper provides a pioneering review of the Uganda Aid Information Management Platform (UAIMP), employing qualitative research methods and key informant interviews (KIIs). It offers a thorough examination of the online database, which is designed to track and manage aid-funded projects and programmes in Uganda.

Section one provides an overview of the platform, including its coverage, the data it houses and the technology underpinning its functionality. Section two examines the legal and institutional framework surrounding the system. Section three explores the data sources, data update mechanisms and the user demographics of the platform. Section four considers how the platform integrates with other online systems used in the management of public finances. Following these, sections five and six discusses the benefits derived from using the platform and the challenges with the system. We then present a literature review of Nepal’s aid management system, and this case study highlights some practices that could be used in Uganda.

This report concludes with a summary of findings, noting especially low user adoption, the restriction of access to just government and donors, and poor coordination between the government and donors. It then presents a set of recommendations for government, donors and civil society organisations. These suggest that the government:

• provides of a clear data standard for data entry
• opens the platform up to the public
• addresses donor concerns on systems design, and
• all the stakeholders within the ecosystem improve their coordination.

► Read more about our work in Uganda

► Share your thoughts with us on Twitter or LinkedIn

► Sign up to our newsletter

Key findings

• The Uganda Aid Information Management Platform (UAIMP) manages information about bilateral funded projects with on budget support;^[1] however, it excludes information about excluding multilateral funded programmes and all off budget support. Information captured by the system includes project descriptions, objectives, location, level of funding, finance type, approval status, disbursement details, project status and the recipients.
• The platform is accessible only to the two types of actors who key data into the system: the government and development partners. This has raised concerns among the interviewed donors, who believe allowing access to civil society organisations and the public will increase credibility and transparency.
• KIIs highlighted a strong demand for data from other actors, including the public, media, researchers and civil society organisations, but they are restricted to using consolidated and incomplete information produced from the platform by government and development partners.
• There are policy frameworks specifically designed for the aid information management system. These are the Aid Information Management Policy, 2020 and the Uganda Aid Management Platform Policy Framework, 2013. Other laws that support the system include: Constitution of Uganda,1995; Budget Act 2001; Access to Information Act, 2005; the Public Finance Management Act, 2015.
• The National Information Technology Authority in Uganda (NITA-U) hosts the platform. It does so with operational support from the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED), some donors, Development Gateway (the non-profit organisation that developed the platform) and government agencies and line ministries.
• The UAIMP is integrated with two other key national financial systems: Uganda’s Programme Budgeting System (PBS) and Integrated Bank of Projects (IBP). This integration streamlines data sharing and coordination. However, it could be further integrated with other financial systems such as Integrated financial management information systems (IFMIS) and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). Increasing and strengthening integrations with other systems would ensure all systems managing public finances are interconnected and can communicate with each other.
• There has been both slow uptake of the system and irregular updates from both donors and government. This has made it impossible to access timely information on projects for key decision-making.
• There has been low user adoption by the donor community and poor reporting on the system both on the side of the government and donors. This means the credibility of the data contained in the platform is weak.
• There is poor coordination between government and development partners, undermining regular project updates on the platform. This is made worse by the lack of proper channel to address the grievances of donors about the platform usability.

Recommendations

Government

• Accessibility. The platform should be made accessible to the public to enhance transparency. Simultaneously, it should also be adapted to address donor access concerns by increasing its bandwidth capacity to accommodate increased web traffic and automating password management procedures to facilitate smoother user access.
• Technical challenges. A comprehensive online manual with instructional videos should be provided and a dedicated technical support person should be appointed to address queries and send reminders to donors on data submission. Moreover, periodic training sessions should be rolled out to enhance new and existing users’ proficiency in using the UAIMP.
• Data. It is vital that the government establishes clear data standards, provides users with data-entry training and shares a comprehensive data format manual with minimum data entry requirements. Additionally, expediting data validation meetings involving ministries and donors will help ensure accurate data inputs and enhance overall data quality in the UAIMP.
• Coordination. The government should proactively enhance coordination among its line ministries and development partners to increase awareness and importance of the platform ‒ this will increase its credibility and data quality. Proper coordination will also ensure communication of user feedback both from the government ministries and donors, and boost user involvement of the system.
• System design. The user experience of the platform should be improved by enhancing user research and the interface, offering more user support, streamlining submission requirements and providing context-specific training as well as testing new use cases. The government should also make it optional for partners to indicate the names of implementing partners, as doing otherwise can create challenges with the procurement process.
• Reporting. Provide more regular reports on the content of the system and ensure inclusion of crucial information required for decision-making, especially by donors, is included.
• Increase user adoption by raising awareness of the platform and providing onboarding training for donors, other government ministries and departments.
• Develop a long-term funding strategy. The government should expedite the development of a long-term funding strategy in partnership with stakeholders, while also establishing a dedicated budget line to support the system.
• Further integration between core financial systems and other related systems. The government should expediate proper and further integration between its core financial systems and related systems ‒ for example the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) ‒ to facilitate seamless data exchanges, eradicate duplication of efforts and foster proper governance and effectiveness of development initiatives.
• The government must take steps to ensure the transparency and accessibility of policies related to external financing to empower the public to actively engage with these policies

Donors

• Data quality and availability. Donors should collaborate with the government to establish data quality standards and a minimum set of consistently reported data. Real-time^[2] data reporting should be encouraged among both donors and the government to enhance the credibility of the information available.
• Coordination and collaboration. Regular meetings between donors and the government should be encouraged to address challenges, provide feedback and enhance the system through collaborative efforts and brainstorming sessions.
• Strengthening governance and oversight. Donors should advocate for independent oversight of the aid information system, including the establishment of an oversight body, public access to the system and civil society participation in aid monitoring and evaluation.
• Resource support. Donors should consider providing technical and financial support to ensure the sustained functionality and development of the UAIMP. They should gradually transition maintenance and support responsibilities to the government for long-term sustainability.

Civil society organisations

• Advocacy for an open aid information management platform. Civil society should advocate for open access to the aid information management system, enabling public scrutiny and ensuring effective oversight. This will increase the transparency and accountability of aid management in Uganda.
• Raising awareness about the system. Civil society organisations should educate the public about the aid information management system and its role in promoting transparency and accountability.
• Providing oversight and monitoring of the UAIMP. Civil society organisations should use the aid data within the system and/or the analysis from the system to hold the government and donors accountable for aid contributions, identify and report misuse, and advocate for enhanced transparency from the government.