Strengthening M&E under Uganda’s NDP IV

If you can’t measure it, you can’t deliver it or ensure evidence-based public decision-making

COMMENT | CHRISTOPHER KANAKULYA | As Uganda enters the implementation phase of the National Development Plan IV for FY2025/26–2029/30, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) stands at the centre serving as the central pillar that transforms ambitions into measurable results. The plan underscores that robust M&E systems, supported by comprehensive statistical data, are essential for tracking progress, assessing outcomes, and guiding adaptive management towards sustainable economic growth. Once viewed as a bureaucratic exercise, M&E has evolved into the Government’s results engine linking planning, budgeting, and implementation in a seamless cycle to deliver tangible outcomes. It ensures that public spending yields measurable impact, enhances transparency in the use of resources, and strengthens evidence-based decision-making. Without a strong M&E system, Uganda risks turning NDP IV into a statement of intent rather than a framework for real transformation.

To take you back a little, Uganda’s M&E system has come a long way; what began in the early 1990s as fragmented, donor-driven monitoring has gradually matured into a nationally integrated framework that underpins fiscal discipline and performance management. The journey started with the Results-Orientated Management (ROM) Programme of the mid-1990s, which introduced performance-based accountability across the public sector. This was followed by the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) in the early 2000s, which established a unified results framework. The Poverty Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (PMES) and the subsequent Poverty Eradication Action Plans (PEAPs) deepened the culture of reporting on national priorities. It is also worth noting that the first PEAP (1997–2000) did not have a monitoring framework. Later, the introduction of the National Development Plan in 2010 and the Public Finance Management Act (2015) institutionalized M&E in Uganda’s planning and budgeting systems. Under the current programme-based approach of NDP IV, M&E has become a cornerstone of results-based management, guiding how public investments are selected, implemented, and assessed.

Currently, the national M&E architecture is anchored by three institutions that form the backbone of Uganda’s results framework. The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) leads coordination, conducts the National Annual Performance Review, and produces the Government Annual Performance Report (GAPR), which assesses public sector performance and the effectiveness of public spending. The National Planning Authority (NPA) provides the design and analytical hub, developing the NDP IV results framework and guiding the preparation of Programme Implementation Action Plans (PIAPs) that convert policy objectives into measurable indicators. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED), through its Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU), links budget allocations to outcomes, ensuring that the money released from the Treasury translates into real results on the ground. Together, OPM, NPA, and MoFPED form a feedback loop of Uganda’s M&E system.

A robust M&E system also lies at the core of Uganda’s Public Investment Management (PIM) reforms. By tracking projects from appraisal to completion, M&E identifies cost overruns, delays, and underperforming investments, ensuring that each shilling invested delivers value for money. However, despite its critical role, the M&E function in Uganda faces persistent financing and capacity challenges. Being categorized as a recurrent expenditure, M&E funding is susceptible to budget cuts, leaving key activities like evaluations, field data collection, and capacity building underfunded. Many Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), as well as Local Governments, lack dedicated M&E staff and functional data systems. This undermines data quality, timeliness, and comparability. In addition, critical performance reviews, such as GAPR, which is even rarely availed to the public, may lack sufficient data depth, which can diminish their credibility and overall policy impact. These gaps highlight the need for deeper institutional reforms and stronger resourcing for M&E at all government levels.

To strengthen M&E systems, the capacity of M&E units should be upgraded from small, marginalized sections to fully equipped departments with skilled personnel and adequate facilitation. Enhancing digital capacity is also critical, government should invest in data management systems, dashboards, and analytics tools, ensuring that M&E data is timely, credible, and harmonized with planning and budgeting cycles. Strengthening local government capacity through targeted training and dedicated funding will further enhance data generation and performance tracking at the grassroots.

In conclusion, M&E is no longer a peripheral exercise; it is the nerve centre of Uganda’s development machinery and when adequately financed and digitized, the M&E system bridges public spending with real results, ensuring that every programme contributes to improved service delivery and citizen well-being. For NDP IV to succeed, Uganda must measure what matters, learn from performance, and adapt continuously. In the end, the country’s development journey will be defined not just by how much it spends, but by how well it measures, delivers, and accounts for every result because if Uganda cannot measure it, it cannot deliver it.

*****

Kanakulya Christopher is Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant at Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG)