Free online reading
Table of Contents
2 Object of Investigation
2.1 The Global Framework of Sanitation
2.2 Access to Sanitation in Uganda
2.3 Implementation of Sanitation Facilities
3 State of the Art
4 Theoretical Framework: Postcolonialism
4.1 Development of Postcolonialism
4.2 Postcolonialism, Independence, and International Relations
4.3 Postcolonialism, Infrastructure and Sanitation
5 Methodology: Process-Tracing
6 Process-Tracing of Sanitation in Uganda
6.1 The Internal Process Towards the Present Access to Sanitation
6.1.1 British Imperialism and Post-Independence Instability
6.1.2 The Politics and Policy of Modern Uganda
6.1.3 Provision: Coverage, Goals, and Financing Sanitation
6.1.4 Obstacles of Sanitation Provision
6.1.5 Solution to Provide Sanitation
6.2 External Financial Resources for Sanitation
Only a few vital activities connect every human being on this planet. Breathing, drinking, eating, social interactions and defecation1. This thesis sheds light on the most culturally reserved topic: The access to sanitation facilities. Most recent developments raised the public profile of one of the most private acts in societies. For example the movie Toilet: A Love Story makes the household sanitation a condition for marriage in India. Furthermore, the United Nations and its Human Rights Council (HRC) finalized the human right to sanitation in 2015. This setting builds the global basis for this thesis.
The thesis analyzes a single case with the method “process-tracing.” Bennett and Checkel define the objective as crafting “.. .hypotheses about causal mechanisms that might causally explain the case” (Bennett and Checkel 2015: 7). The author is going to examine the sanitation situation in Uganda2 as its case where the current coverage is the outcome of interest. The first five chapters are going set the frame for the research question: How does process-tracing explain the current access to sanitation in Uganda as its outcome of interest? The thesis is going to construct the case in the “Object of Investigation” as its second chapter. It defines the access to sanitation, the global and Ugandan data of coverage, and essential aspects of implementation. The third part is going to present current publications in the diverse field of interest for this paper. The thesis formulate a theoretical foundation for the analysis, author’s perspective, and language. It establishes postcolonialism as the theory for the national and international development. The fifth chapter constructs the method process-tracing which shall functionally guide the analysis. In the sixth chapter, the thesis answers the research question in three sections. Firstly, it analyzes the internal process from the colonial period till today; it includes the political sphere, the judicial frames, an economic perspective, and the immediate provision of sanitation facilities. The second part is going to look at non-state actors with a strong focus on external financial resources. It examines the official development assistance (ODA), the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and “foreign direct investment” (FDI). Lastly, the thesis discusses the results of chapter six within the framework set in previous chapters. This section conclusively answers the research question and discusses the causal process. The paper eds with a summary and gives incentives for future studies and fields in its seventh chapter. First of all, the paper begins with an introduction to the object of investigation which set a general premise for the outcome of interest.
2 Object of Investigation
The object of investigation is going to take a look on the field of sanitation from a political and service perspective. The goal is to identify and define the current coverage of sanitation as the outcome of interest. Therefore, it explains sanitation from an international and Ugandan perspective and introduces key features for the implementation of facilities. Firstly, the chapter introduces the international standards and legal framework, and it presents an overview of the global monitoring. Secondly, it discusses and compares these findings with foundations of sanitation in Uganda. Lastly, the chapter presents essential components for the provision of sanitation to increase the overall access.
2.1 The Global Framework of Sanitation
For centuries, sanitation is the technical solution for hygienic disposal of human excreta. The system has two sides: Facilities for usage and “waste management”. The toilet gives people the a locus to defecate. The collected waste is moved either by a service or a piped sewerage to another processing location. The thesis focuses on the access to sanitation facilities and refrains from waste management. Nevertheless, it may be essential to refer to the latter for explanatory purposes. In brief, the HRC defines sanitation as “.. .a system for the collection, transport, treatment and disposal and reuse of human excreta and associated hygiene” (Human Rights Council 2009: 20).
The international community began to include norms regarding the access to sanitation with the Third Geneva Convention in its revision in 1949. Various international treaties and conventions included some form of narrative to ensure access to sanitation. Most significantly, the United Nations General Assembly resolution A/C.3/70/L.55/Rev.1
“[affirms that the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation as components of the right to an adequate standard of living are essential to the full enjoyment of the right to life and all human rights” (United Nations General Assembly 2015: 4).
The Human Rights Council confirms the individual human right to sanitation in resolution A/HRC/RES/33/10 which highlights the different challenges and solutions for water and sanitation to achieve universal coverage (Human Rights Council 2016: 3).
The Joint Monitoring Programme’s (JMP) Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water from 2015 sets the current international standard for sanitation with the “sanitation ladder”3 (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 50). Their mandate for global monitoring began in 1990. They have significantly improved their concepts which presently has four categories. Firstly, the safest type is an “improved sanitation facility” (ISF) for each household that separates excreta from human contact (ibid.). The program calls these facilities "shared facilities," if used by more than one household (ibid.). Every unsafe toilet and structure is an “unimproved facility”, and no access to sanitation is “open defecation” (OD) (ibid.).4
Lastly, this section presents the global development of access to sanitation. The sanitation ladder is the empirical basis for this thesis. Therefore, the JMP gives a full data set only for 1990 and 2015. Also, the World Bank has retroactively adjusted the ladder for ISF and OD for the complete period with minor differences. In 1990, the 52.9% to 54% of the global population had access to ISF and 24% to 26.5% practiced OD (cf. The World Bank Group 2017; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 14). The access to ISF continuously grew every year. It reached 60% in 2002, 65% in 2011 and reached 67.5% to 68% in 2015 (ibid.). OD constantly decreases in the same period. It passed 20% in 2003, 15% in 2012, and reached 13% in 2015 (ibid.). The Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water states that access to shared facilities rose from 5% in 1990 to 9% in 2015 and the access to unimproved facilities sank from 17% to 10% (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 14).
All in all, sanitation is a key activity of human being. The global community has agreed that the access to sanitation is essential to the well-being of everybody. Nevertheless, more than 2.5 billion people have access to an improved sanitation facility and of those more than 750 million defecate openly. With this basis in mind, the following section is going to look into the thesis’ case Uganda.
2.2 Access to Sanitation in Uganda
This section is similarly going to walk through the rights, definitions, and data of Uganda. The Eastern Africa country has a population of 34.6mil in 2014 according to its census (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2016: 8). By comparison, the World Bank states that more than 41.4mil people live in Uganda in 2016 (cf. The World Bank 2017). Its GDP was at US$84.93bn and US$2,100 per capita at 2016 prices (cf. The Central Intelligence Agency 2017). Uganda has been on the list of “Least Developed Countries”(LDCs)5 by “Committee for Development Policy” of the United Nations since 1971 (cf. UN Committee for Development Policy 2017).
In Uganda, the “Ministry of Water and Environment”(MWE) has the mandated competence for national sanitation policy. It coordinates its sanitation policies and activities with other ministries and actors. All institutions have the responsibility and mandate to monitor, assess, plan, regulate, advice, facilitate, guide, fund, evaluate the quality, and give financial assistance to their activities and realm of control. The provision and service of sanitation are not part of the national competences. The “National Water and Sewerage Cooperation” (NWSC)6 has to coordinate, implement, operate, maintain, and communicate sanitation activities in its assigned urban areas. Lastly, Local Governments provide these actions for every other place in their districts.
Uganda founds its current political system in the Constitution of 1996. It states that “every citizen has a right to clean and safe drinking water and environment” (The Republic of Uganda 1995: Article 39). The individual right to a healthy environment comprises the access to sanitation to realize the right. As a result, the government of Uganda targets total coverage in its development strategy Uganda Vision 2040. The government explains their policies in their five-year National Development Plans (NDP) and in the Ministerial Policy Statement - Water and Environment Sector (MPS). The Ministry of Water and Environment formulates its policies and activities in the annual Sector Performance Report (SPR), and in irregularly published implementation manuals for the water and sanitation sector.
The government records show that it does not accept the sanitation ladder as their definition for sanitation monitoring. The government and its ministries inconsistently use different terminology and concepts to define sanitation facilities. They regularly omit an explanation, definition, or changelog for the various types of facilities. Moreover, the government of Uganda only splits between access to toilets and OD. Their coverage includes unsafe and overcrowded facilities which bare health risks. As a consequence, the thesis is going to use the sanitation ladder as its foundational monitoring concept.
Thus, the monitoring evidence is also from the JMP and World Bank. In 1990, 13% had access to ISF, 10% had access to a shared facility, 57% had access to an unimproved facility, and 20% defecated openly (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). The access to ISF reached 14.2% in 1994, 16% in 2002, 18% in 2009, and 19,10% in 2015 (cf. The World Bank 2017; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). The two middle steps of the sanitation ladder gained a low percentage till 2015. Access to shared facilities rose to 14% and access to unimproved facilities rose to 60% (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). Finally, the percentage of people who openly defecate constantly decreased by 0,5% to 0,6% from 1990 to 2014. The number dropped below 10% in 2009 and is currently at 7,2% - since 2014 (cf. The World Bank 2017; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). The lowest coverage is in the north-eastern districts Kaabong, Moroto, Napak, and Amudat (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 123).
The thesis is going to analyze the institutional structure, the provision and access to sanitation facilities in chapter 6.1. The next section is going to show the obligations, responsibilities, ownership, financing, and provision of sanitation by the individual as well as the government.
2.3 Implementation of Sanitation Facilities
Returning from the individual case to general measurements that are key to implement sanitation facilities within the international standards and legislation successfully is the aim of this section since it is going to look at the obligations of the government, the responsibilities of the state and the individual, and the implementation of facilities.
Governments must fulfill the human right to sanitation. It obligates the government to provide access to sanitation services for the citizens. Sanitation most commonly is either a public good of the state or a service of the private sector. In the case of the latter, the government may find it necessary to transfer the responsibilities and business of provision to non-state actors. "The rapporteur for Water and Sanitation to the Human Rights Council" emphasizes that the government has to enforce regulations to protect the human right to sanitation when it privatizes sanitation (cf. Roaf, Winkler, and Schiessl 2014). Furthermore, the state has responsibilities to enforce the human right, but it does not equal the right of ownership (ibid.). Nevertheless, the right-holders must be able to use an improved sanitation facility whenever it is necessary.
The international consensus is that sanitation must be affordable. However, it does not correlate with the financial situation of every state. The HRC agrees that the government must provide access to sanitation to enforce the human right for anyone who can not afford it. In contrast, LDCs and others may not be able to afford, build, or implement sanitation facilities for those in need. Uganda recognizes the concept of affordability and the provider wants to give a household, house, or land access to sanitation facilities or connect it to the sewerage. In retrospect, the international legal framework successfully establishes the right to sanitation. The next global step is the realization of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.2: “By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations” (UN-Water 2016: 2). The next chapter is going to show vital research into the field of sanitation which shapes the direction of this thesis.
3 State of the Art
The foundation for the thesis has been laid out in the previous two chapters. The third is going to present the most recent publications that have had an impact on this paper. Also, essential book and publication are going to be submitted because of their undeniable value for the thesis. The chapter includes medicine, biology, social sciences, and other academic branches to give a full view of current interests. The core topics are sanitation and its provision, the method process-tracing, and postcolonialism.
Firstly, Sharmila Murthy’s The Human Right(s) to Water and Sanitation: History, Meaning and the Controversy Over-Privatization and Obani and Gupta’s The evolution of the Right to Water and Sanitation: Differentiating the Implications present the development of sanitation as human right (cf. Murthy 2013; Obani and Gupta 2015). Cavallo’s The Human Right to Water presents a legal perspective of the implementation of the “human right to water and sanitation”7 (cf. Cavallo 2012). The humanities look at the progress or lack of implementation in government and society (cf. Lof- tus and Sultana 2012; McGranahan 2015). Pullan et al. study the different proportions of access to water and sanitation beyond the national level. He emphasizes regional inequalities between states and within states (cf. Pullan et al. 2014).
Pruss-Ustun et al. analyze health-related issues and diseases through a lack of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). Their meta-study incorporates data from 145 countries and highlights the results for low- and middle-income households (cf. Pruss-Ustun et al. 2014). A detailed study is Water and Sanitation in Schools: A Systematic Review of the Health and Educational Outcomes which shows the impact of access to sanitation on attendance, health and, usage in schools (cf. Jasper, Le, and Bartram 2012). An empirical review by Dickinson et al. analyzes the relation between the provision of sanitation and an improvement in health and welfare (Dickinson et al. 2015). Furthermore, Cheng et al. show the relation between the water, sanitation, and the mortality rate of mothers, infants and children (cf. Cheng et al. 2012). Yates et al. present the impact of sanitation on people living with HIV (cf. Yates et al. 2015). In contrast, several studies research the lack of access to sanita- tion facilities and its negative health impacts (cf. Montgomery and Elimelech 2007; Travers et al.
2013) . Mesharch W. Katusiimeh looks at the growth of non-state parties in the Ugandan health sector. The paper analyzes its impact on the accountability of such services for Ugandan citizens (cf. Katusiimeh 2015). Lastly, institutional research and evaluations are key primary sources because of their collection of data and analysis (cf. UN-Water and WHO 2015, 2016; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2013, 2015; van de Lande 2015).
The next paragraph shows essential texts on the thesis’ theory: Postcolonialism. Firstly, Ashcroft et al. published a collection of papers in The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (cf. Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2009b). The book includes introductions to various perspectives and offers excerpts and recommendations for further research on postcolonialism. Furthermore, handbooks of international relation theories include articles on postcolonialism. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations incorporates an article from Blaney and Inayatullah who are key figures in the current integration of postcolonialism into the field of international relations (cf. Blaney and Inayatullah 2010). Moreover, Siba N. Grovogui devotes a chapter to postcolonialism in International Relation Theory: Discipline and Diversity by Dunne, Kurki, and Smith (cf. Grovogui 2013). Besides an integration into areas, key concepts are the decolonization and reprocessing of the colonial history. For example, Ashcroft, Griffith, Tiffin, Achebe, and Appadurai present different approaches to process and move beyond a nations’ colonial history (cf. Achebe 2009; Appadurai 2009; Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2009a; Ashcroft 2009). Geir Lundestad reviews the path of international relations after the second world war and devotes minor passages and sections to colonization in Africa. The colonization in Uganda is mentioned briefly within the context of the decolonization process in the 1960s (cf. Lundestad
2014) . The book International Relations Since 1945: A Global History by Young and Kent provides a section on The End of the British Empire in Africa which mentions the colonies and post-colonial nations (cf. J. W. Young and Kent 2013). Moreover, Robert J. C. Young’s Postcolonialism: A Historical Introduction provides one of the most comprehensive introductions and postcolonial perspectives into the behavior of the involved actors (cf. R. J. C. Young 2001, R. J. C. Young 2015).
The OECD does some extensive work on assessment and monitoring of ODA. Also, Anand’s Every Drop Counts: Assessing Aid for Water and Sanitation reviews the official data and adds new interpretations and further information on the expenditure of ODA for water and sanitation (cf. Anand 2013). Salami et al. similarly evaluates the data and emphasizes on the effectiveness of water and sanitation provision through a comparison of Kenya, Madagascar, Burkina Faso, and Uganda (cf. Salami et al. 2014).
Besides the assessment, multiple authors have recently studied the impact of development assistance. Bwire, Morrissey, and Lloyd looked at an impact on the Ugandan government’s budget through foreign resources (cf. Bwire, Morrissey, and Lloyd 2013). Another perspective on the political influence is aimed for by Jones and Tarp in their article Does Foreign Aid Harm Political Institutions? (cf. Jones and Tarp 2016). Finally, an article by Bhutta and Aleem shows the influences of foreign assistance on the positive development of health (cf. Bhutta and Aleem 2013).
All in all, this chapter present different areas of research on sanitation and postcolonialism From medical progress and problems to foreign aid, the access, and provision of sanitation have an impact on numerous fields. Also, it shows the most fundamental sources for postcolonialism. Every text influences the thesis, its author, and the writing, but not all of them are relevant for the production.
4 Theoretical Framework: Postcolonialism
The following three sections are going to establish the conceptual framework for its research. It narrows the vast and diverse concept to a coherent foundation that accompanies the whole narrative of the paper. The thesis chooses postcolonialism8 because it is a flexible and open theory which joins the rather dominant methodology. Furthermore, postcolonialism gives a valuable feedback for research of former colonies from a distance. This assessment is essential to understand the complete process of sanitation in Uganda. Therefore, this chapter is going to introduce postcolonialism and defines the historical dimension of active external domination. Secondly, it presents the current understanding of the field of international relations, and post-independence behavior. Finally, the thesis discusses if postcolonialism is linked to sanitation.
4.1 Development of Postcolonialism
Postcolonialism originates from various fields which caused the foundation of research institutes and fellowships around the globe. The most cited influences are the Frankfurter School’s view on modernization, Foucault’s view on power, Marxism’s critical view on capitalism, and the “dependency theory” (cf. Mbembe 2001; R. J. C. Young 2001: 49-54, 58-59). These factions form a critical view of the colonization by western powers. Franz Fanon is one of the earliest authors of postcolonial discourse about French colonies (Chowdhry and Nair 2005: 12; R. J. C. Young 2001: 18).
In postcolonialism is a consensus about the foundational texts (cf. Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2009b). Firstly, Edward Said’s Orientalism criticizes the Western view of the “Orient” in 1970 (cf. Said 1978). In 1988, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak published Can the Subaltern Speak which deconstructs the lack of publications by colonized people (cf. Spivak 1988). Finally, Homi K. Bhabha’s The Location of Culture introduces the construction of identity by “hybridity,” “diaspora,” and “Third Space” for minorities from former colonies (cf. Bhabha 1994).
These foundations open the path for different areas of research concerning colonies. This postcolonial theory explicitly focuses on three domains. Firstly, the historical dimension shall review the period of active external reign in this section. Robert J. C. Young analyzes the development of British expansion from a postcolonial perspective in his book Postcolonialism: A Historical Introduction. In the beginning, he distinguishes between “colonialism” and “imperialism” because he sees a different approach in the two concepts. Both terms originated in the 19th century: their entomology has changed over the course of history.
Young defines “colonialism” as the emigration of people to conquest through settlements, and the direct domination of new territory (R. J. C. Young 2001: 22-27). He names two causes for the permanent leave of homelands by British people: On the one hand, his population theory argues that the British population was too large to sufficiently provide for food themselves (ibid.). Instead of civil unrest, the British decided to emigrate. On the other hand, he argues that there was an internal drive for economic earnings and massive profits which motivated the population to leave Britain (ibid.). Young calls these activities from the 15th to 18th-century colonialism because of the intention to permanently settle in an overseas territory.
Regarding the following eras, Robert Young claims a significant change in the execution and behavior of emigration. The British concept evolved in the first half of the 19th century. The expansion of settlements ended, and an ideology of economic exploitation and cultural separation began (R. J. C. Young 2001: 25-38). The economic concept has a similar orientation as in the previous centuries. The ideology is to maximize profits and sell products to the United Kingdom and other countries. The British and colonial administrations employed and exploited the local population (ibid.). Sources and description do not verify an increase of exploitation during imperialism. However, the second ideological feature may have had a significant impact on the first or vice versa. The colonizers culturally segregated themselves from the local population and established a powerful hierarchy. Young argues that the construction of “colonial monumental buildings” and an emerging cult of masculinity are evidence for a change in the imperial society (R. J. C. Young 2001: 28). Furthermore, the imperialist nation justified a civilization process of the foreign territories with its "higher status" (ibid.). Lastly, he argues that the goal of imperialism is to secure domestic political and economic stability with the national prestige of being an imperialistic power (R. J. C. Young 2001: 31). The timespan and description apply for the British domination of its Ugandan Protectorate. The first paragraphs of chapter six are going to analyze the sanitation activities of British imperialism.
In contrast to the binary division, Robert Young argues that the colonized people disregard shift (cf. R. J. C. Young 2001). The author hypothesizes that external dominance and its form of implementation are core concerns but not the new intentions. The change did not end exploitation (R. J. C. Young 2001: 23-24). However, Young hypothesizes that the transition to imperialism causes stronger exploitation (cf. R. J. C. Young 2001). The following section is going to look beyond the direct reign of a foreign state. It will show how postcolonialism describes the time after independence and its view with international relations. The thesis analyzes these aspects with the relation to sanitation during the Ugandan Protectorate.
4.2 Postcolonialism, Independence, and International Relations
Postcolonialism deals with the resistance against forceful external domination (R. J. C. Young 2001: 12). The theory moves beyond the past to analyze the recognition and establishment of modern powers (Scott 1999: 34). The section is going to look at the independent nation, language and identity, and the frame of international relations from a postcolonial perspective.
Firstly, one has to focus on the domestic development and integration into international relations after its formal independence. Secondly, a colonized country shifts from external dominance and the revolution by indigenous people to a struggle for power and a new system. Postcolonialism argues that two factor have had an influence. Firstly, the entire history has an impact on the progress towards today. Colonized people gain power which they did not have while still being under foreign domination. The exclusion may be a major factor because colonized people did not have the knowledge about how to structure and lead a country. Furthermore, different groups wanted a leading role in the new nation which commonly resulted in inner conflicts. Secondly, the integration into the international system had an impact on the internal struggles. A country had to find its role and place in the international community. These two aspects influenced the construction of a national identity and the domestic efforts in a post-independence nation.
Another issue to discuss is language. Firstly, language is a fundamental element of national identity. Postcolonialism argues that the enforcement of a language on its foreign territory had an impact on its post-independence behavior. English became the working language in the law, government and various other realms of society in Uganda. Postcolonial theorists attest two sides to it: On the one hand, its a binding mechanism between different groups within countries which did not speak the same languages before. On the other hand, the language is one of the most visible and strongest attributes of the past suppression. The second concern about language is its usage in academia and the field of international relations. Postcolonialism argues that the hierarchical structure is still visible in the language of Western nations and the international organizations. Its terminology separates the more industrialized and wealthy countries from others. The most prominent reflection is the reference to the LDCs as “Third World”. Both refer to countries in a bleak situation. The first one is rather new and it is a reference to the goal “developed countries”. Postcolonialism widely criticizes the latter term. Driven to the fringe of vocabulary, it is used as a referral to every state not affiliated with any side in the cold war. The term “points to those below a certain civilization or material level, and specifically those below the ability to shape the world according to their own vision” (In- ayatullah and Blaney 2004: 663). The postcolonial suggestion is “global South” which geographically refers to the LDCs and every other country below Western nations with a connotation of a weaker economy and instability.
Next, critical postcolonialism looks for continuous external domination, current oppression, and hierarchies (R. J. C. Young 2001: 44-45). This perspective looks beyond states and their sovereignty (Inayatullah and Blaney 2004: 671). However, the thesis did not found sufficient evidence to discuss postcolonial domination and pressure in the sanitation sector. Therefore, the paper notes the concerns by postcolonialism without validating it.
4.3 Postcolonialism, Infrastructure and Sanitation
The analysis of the access to sanitation is the path from the Uganda protectorate till today. Therefore, it is essential, to begin with, the postcolonial take on the identity and struggles after independence because the new nation must enforce the human right to sanitation for its people. However, the available sources did not reveal postcolonialism’s perspective on infrastructure, public goods, WASH, or the individual sanitation sector. The thesis can only refer to theorized activities which may be directly linked to sanitation during external domination and post-independence.
In retrospect, postcolonialism argues that language has a fundamental concept of the theory. The paper is going to respect these findings and refers to Uganda foremost as an independent entity. Geographically it is part of the global south, sub-Saharan Africa, and East Africa. Its development may be generalized as LDC because of the reference to the data of international bodies. The next chapter is going to present "process-tracing" as its guiding method.
5 Methodology: Process-Tracing
The term ‘process tracing” originated in the 1960s and 1970s from cognitive psychology (Bennett and Checkel 2015: 5). In the social sciences, the method originated in the 1970s. Process tracing is a method that is suited to do qualitative research with one or just a few cases. This paper uses the conceptualization with one event and will not discuss the imperatives and features of a small-N analysis with more than one case.9 Bennett and Checkel define process-tracing “as the analysis of evidence of processes, sequences, and conjuncture of events within a case for either developing or testing hypotheses about causal mechanisms that might causally explain the case” (Bennett and Checkel 2015: 7).
Beach and Rasmus, and Blatter and Haverland define it as “tracing a complex conglomerate of systematic and case-specific causal mechanism that produces the outcome in question” (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 18; cf. Blatter and Haverland 2012). Process-tracing applies specific terminology and phrases to analyze the case. The chapter begins with a definition and an introduction of the terms of process-tracing. It will define its “logical foundation” as the purpose of the method and the structure of the analysis (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 121-23). The chapter ends with a set of tools to successfully process-trace a single case. Process-tracing incorporates "plurality", "contingency in time and space", and "configurational thinking" as its fundament (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 80).
At the heart of this paper is the causal mechanism which is “.. .a complex system which produces... an outcome by the interaction of a number of parts according to direct causal laws” (Glennan 1996: 52). Causal mechanisms explain the outcome of interest (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 95-96). It is the complete explanatory structure of the process tracing which incumbents causal factors and it has no restriction in time (cf. Beach and Pedersen 2016; Blatter and Haverland 2012). In other words, it “is defined as a theory of a system of interlocking parts that transmits causal forces from X to Y” (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 29). Process tracing uses its sources and empirical evidence to reveal a causal process or intervening variables (George and Bennett 2005: 6). It has the goal “to identify intervening causal process - the causal chain and causal mechanisms - between an independent variable (or variables) and the outcome of the dependent variable” (George and Bennett 2005: 206).
This paper’s outcome is the current status of access to improved sanitation facilities in Uganda. The object of investigation provides an overview of the causal factors and the results. The analysis splits the process into two paths. Firstly, the domestic aspect looks at colonialism, the government structure, legal framework, economy, and the provision of sanitation. Beach and Pedersen argue that a single outcome study can be used to show its historical relationship (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 1819). Hence, the historical contextualization and combination of events on the provision of sanitation must begin in its infancy because the current outcome may be historically related. Secondly, the thesis tracks the process of external financial resources which flow into the sanitation sector via official development assistance (ODA), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and foreign direct investments (FDIs).
Process-tracing offers multiple logical foundations as a base (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 119-23). These designedly compose the collection of data, its analysis, and interpretation. This paper follows the idea of “causal chains” and not "process dynamic" or “cynical process” by Blatter and Haver- land’s “causal-process tracing.” Firstly, the thesis excludes process-dynamic because it argues that either a repetition of a mechanism or the fixed repetition of one element within changing process causes the outcome. The process of provision and access to sanitation is too complicated and the time-span too broad to follow this logic. The “cynical process” is also not suited for the case of Uganda because the lack of documentation cannot show the reactions to success or loss for the sanitation sector. The thesis’ process-tracing is going to base its logical foundation on “causal chains.” It rests on the concept of consistency: A continuous presentation of a process without skipping significant sections. The thesis develops a causal chain with necessary and sufficient conditions and configurations. A first key differentiation is the logic of causal chains against the idea of “contingency.” The mechanism has to weigh between the reduction to the key features and the consistent approach that aims for a more holistic and coherent analysis (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 91; Mitchell 2002). It is the “causal narrative” that argues for the reduction to the main explanatory features which explain the outcome of interest (cf. Blatter and Haverland 2012). The thesis constructs this narrative through the selection of prior knowledge, debates, and the reflection of the narrative’s role in causal chains (cf. Blatter and Haverland 2012).
Different structures and approaches are available for the methodology of process-tracing. The thesis chooses causal mechanisms as its fundamental concept for its clear deduction on the theoretical level. A systematic and case-specific causal mechanism has two steps: Firstly, the author has to conceptualize a mechanism for this process-tracing - the core of this chapter. Secondly, the available empirical data must verify the analysis with academic research, media reports, and statements by “individual, collective, or corporate actors” that may be essential causal factors (cf. Beach and Pedersen 2016; Blatter and Haverland 2012: 106). Chapter six presents the analysis and verification of this process. Its goal is to find the essential causes of this case’s outcome. The last section is going to discuss whether the causal mechanisms and chain is a sufficient explanation of the current coverage of sanitation in Uganda.
As introduced in the beginning, process-tracing consists of three basic assumptions: Firstly, the plurality of causal factors jointly leads to the outcome of interest. Secondly, the causality between factors, configurations, and mechanisms performs in ‘time’ and ‘space.' Hence, this process has a temporal order and data is gained by empirical observations. Finally, configurational thinking is the assumption that causal factors lead to "social outcomes" (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 3; Blatter and Haverland 2012: 80-81). These assumptions frame the outcome-oriented approach. It identifies the complex framework of causal mechanisms with questions like “Which (combination of) conditions make this kind of outcome possible” (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 80). Therefore, the interaction between causal factors might use different paths to arrive at the result. The diversity of actions and reactions in various settings is called "causal heterogeneity" (ibid.). The outcome of interest shall not be generalized from one case to more (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 101, 135-42).
The analysis of causal factors is defined by conditions and configurations to conclude the outcome of interest that differs from inevitable and sufficient ones. The following paragraph explains this distinction. “A causal factor (X) is a necessary condition if the outcome (Y) occurs only if X exists” (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 29-32; Blatter and Haverland 2012: 92). It implies for example that “... the outcome would not have occurred without this condition” (ibid.). A "sufficient condition" is a causal factor (X) that always leads to Y, but the outcome may stand alone (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 92-93). Similar rules apply for “configurations”: These are a fixed set of causal factors which result in another element: W = X and Z (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 93). A configuration follows the same concept of necessity and sufficiency as causal conditions (ibid.). A “causal interaction” occurs when every causal factor is necessary, and the combination of all factors is sufficient for the outcome of interest (ibid.). A “causal conjunction” is the combination of multiple causal conditions operating for a brief duration or points to produce Y (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 94). More than two layers of causal conditions in a temporal order are "causal chains" (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 94-95).
The proposed causal mechanism has two strings of the process towards the current number of access to sanitation facilities in Uganda. Firstly, the paper hypothesizes an internal causal chain in Uganda. It began during the Ugandan Protectorate, its development as an independent state and new governmental structure, the international and domestic legislative frameworks, and the peaks in Ugandan economy. Another causal chain is the external influence through financial resources which have a significant impact regarding the current outcome of sanitation.
Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approach in Small-N Research suggests methods for a successful process-tracing analysis (cf. Blatter and Haverland 2012). In general, “causal-process observation” is the method to reveal "causal inferences" (Brady 2010: 318). In other words, causal factors lead to conditions which may be causal inferences for the outcome of interest The observations concentrate on the occasions where multiple causal factors shape the next step. The initial condition and outcome are references to define the temporal order between causal conditions and effects or the outcome itself.
Blatter and Haverland name three “empirical fundaments” for causal-process observations (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 110-11). Firstly, “comprehensive storylines” are “...the development of potentially relevant causal conditions.presented in a narrative style” (ibid.). It is the revelation of structural factors in the historical progress which forms goals: Firstly, it separates the main periods or levels from the whole picture and the essential points which are responsible for the later development. The function is to describe the “structural causal conditions” and development that has an impact on the outcome of interest (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 111). The causal chain and mechanism begin with the “overall process” to “different sequences” which are “separated by decisive situations and phases of transformation” (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 111-12). The latter defines a limited period with an individual result which sets the path of the causal process. Through temporal succession and proximity, one can reveal the turning points which are critical moments that show detailed revelation of causal conditions and mechanisms. These key moments work for the complete revelation of causal conditions and mechanisms.
The second empirical tool is the “smoking gun”. It is “an observation that presents a central piece of evidence within a cluster of observations which provides a high level of certainty for a causal inference” (Bennett and Checkel 2015: 17; Blatter and Haverland 2012: 115). Such an observation is not disconnected from the process but rather about others with a “dense temporal and spatial connection” (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 115). To be able to call an observation a “smoking gun” there has to be at least one more temporally connected observation (ibid.). Furthermore, it must be within a spatial continuity. A limited geographical area involves a social relation between the members of the community, and there are strong communication and connection within this social network (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 116). This method is mainly focused on acting individuals and assesses their behavior in critical moments and their actions.
Finally, “causal confessions” explain the motivations of actors. It takes the “smoking gun” one step further and adds explanations on the micro level (Blatter and Haverland 2012: 117). Blatter and Haverland name two possibilities to show the motivation of an actor. Researchers may combine the structural information and the empirical data with observations of actors (ibid.). The other approach is to look at the specific statements of actors. These could give answers about the cause, perception, motivators, and reflections of their earlier decision (ibid.).
All in all, process tracing is the methodological framework for this paper. The method provides the opportunity to analyze the provision and access to sanitation in Uganda. The following analysis is going to put process-tracing to action and develop the hypothesized causal chains. The analysis is going to portray the combination of causal factors which may reveal new insights and consequences for the provision of sanitation in Uganda.
6 Process-Tracing of Sanitation in Uganda
The previous chapters have framed the basis of this analysis. The object of investigation introduced the single case and research question. Postcolonialism builds the theoretical framework. The method is process-tracing which will guide the reader through the next sections. The thesis is going to develop the causal process that is going to explain the coverage of sanitation in Uganda as the outcome of interest. Therefore, the research question is “Which process led towards the present access to sanitation in Uganda?” This chapter splits into three sections: The first part traces the inner development of Uganda from the 18th century till today. It includes parts on imperialism, democratization, provision of sanitation, legal framework, and the economy. Secondly, the paper presents an outside view of non-Ugandan government financial resources to its sanitation sector. Official development assistance (ODA), nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), and foreign direct investments(FDIs) are going complement the analysis. Finally, last chapter summarizes, compares, and reflects on the causal mechanism and chains that form the outcome of interest. The three sections are going to balance between accurate contingency and a causal narrative in its analysis. Lastly, the complexity of the sanitation sector must emphasize on plurality because only the joint conglomerate of causal factors is going to explain the contemporary coverage of sanitation in Uganda.
6.1 The Internal Process Towards the Present Access to Sanitation
6.1.1 British Imperialism and Post-Independence Instability
The devastating sanitation situation sparked the interest to understand why Uganda reached its status quo. In 2015, the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) showed that only 19.1% have access to improved sanitation facilities (ISF) and 7.2% defecate openly in Uganda (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). The dangers and impacts cause unimaginable challenges for every Ugandan and the entire nation. The thesis begins with a comprehensive storyline about the composition in Uganda and the earliest recorded sanitation activities. In Uganda, a wide range of ethnicities settled mainly around the Lake Victoria, Nile, and other waters more than thousand years ago. Every group developed unique cultures, systems, and societies. The most prominent are traditional kingdoms that ruled before the expansion of the British empire. Evaluations about access to sanitation facilities before the British arrival are not accessible for this thesis. Byrnes attributes the scarcity of documentation to oral traditions by Hima, Bito, and Buganda (Byrnes 1992: 6-8).
In the 19th century, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom seized the region around Lake Victoria. The British planned to establish the Ugandan Protectorate. They allied with pro-protestant Bugandans in the civil war in the middle of the 19th century. The victory resulted in the British ambition to conquer the whole Ugandan territory. From 1888 to 1894, the Imperial British East Africa Company gained control of Uganda and began to establish an administration and trade. Since 1894, the British Colonial Office is the leading actor that governed the Ugandan Protectorate. The Buganda kingdom cooperated with the superior armed forces which brought them an autonomous status in the new country (Nyeko 1996: xvi). British troops occupied and enforced with military superiority a “...massive expropriation of African land by European farmers...” (Nyeko 1996: xvii). The Europeans imported cash crops for trade (Nyeko 1996: xvii-xviii). However, they did not build large-scale settlements as described by Young’s imperialism (R. J. C. Young 2001: 28-31). The trade integrated Uganda into a global network with Britain and other countries. An agricultural expansion seized the territory of “nomadic or relatively sparse” indigenous people. The Europeans perceived the land as unused and introduced farming which made a nomadic life impossible (R. J. C. Young 2001: 24). The British kingdom dominated the economy, trade, and industry for the whole Ugandan Protectorate - except for the autonomous Buganda Kingdom (Nilsson 2006: 370; Nyeko 1996: xviii). Hence, the first causal factor is British imperialism that seized Uganda and transferred knowledge about sanitation to Uganda The accessible sources do not reveal the access to sanitation in the mostly rural Ugandan territory. The declaration of the British Protectorate of East-Africa marks the beginning of documented sanitation in Uganda. David Nilsson’s assessment of the capital, Kampala, records most features of the provision of sanitation during the British rule. The colonial administration implemented a "singlebucket system" in the early decades which is an initial causal factor that sparked sanitation activities (Nilsson 2006: 373). In 1926, Kampala had 1.064 private and nine public latrines. The users had to pay a “conservancy fee” for the transport of excreta out of the city (ibid.). The Colonial Office and immigrants were aware of the importance of sanitation and hygiene because they provided “facilities” before water supply (Nilsson 2006: 377). Primarily, several health-crises hit the expanding city in the first decades of British rule (Nilsson 2011: 39-40, 2006: 377). Foremost, cholera, plague, malaria, and typhoid mobilized the actors, and their capital to improve the second causal factor public health (Nilsson 2006: 377-78, 2011: 39-40; Summers 1991: 787). The observations lead to the first smoking gun: The administration installed a large-scale water-supply and sewerage system in Kampala. The Colonial Office and the Protectorate’s general revenue subsidized the sewerage. In contrast to the water-supply, a strict policy to recover the cost was not applied for the sewerage (Nilsson 2011: 14). The sewerage was completed in 1939 and served more than 20,000 people in the area of Kampala (Nilsson 2006: 378). Furthermore, the administration established hygienic norms and laws around the same time. Nilsson does not put this causal factor in relation to other activities. In the 1920s, sanitary inspectors began to enforce them with corporal punishment (Nilsson 2006: 373). With regards to causal factors, the paragraph names financing and behavior which are triggered by the subsidies and norms.
However, most Ugandans did not profit from these actions. In contrast, natives outside the Buganda kingdom suffered the most from imperialism. Besides to expropriation, the indigenous population received meager wages if employed by European farmers. Additionally, the administration raised poll taxes from the Protectorate. John Baffes argues that barely affordable taxation forced the Ugandan population to cultivate cash crops, especially cotton (Baffes 2009: 2). The export of cotton continuously grew and contributed to the financial independence form Britain in 1915 (Byrnes 1992: 14). But only the autonomous kingdom of Buganda appears to have profited from the export. Other Ugandan groups had to pay significantly higher taxes in form of material goods like cotton, tea, and coffee in order to obey the administration (Baffes 2009: 2; Nyeko 1996: xviii). Furthermore, prices were controlled by the Colonial Office; cotton-grinning was a monopoly held by the Asian immigrants, and many people were not represented in the legislative structure (Byrnes 1992: 16-18). Hence, exploitation prevented wealth development for the majority. The individual budget is part of the financing causal factor because Ugandans could not pay the 35 Shilling annual fee to gain access to the urban sanitation systems (Nilsson 2006: 381-83). Additionally, Anne Phillips and Robert Young argue that low wages and cultural separation are the reasons for the exclusion from national welfare and the underdevelopment of a former colony (Phillips 1989: 2-3; R. J. C. Young 2001: 27). Imperialistic economic exploitation is a governments decision and therefore forms another causal factor: Political intention and action. Poverty is part of the causal factor on financing. Lastly, the paragraph revealed the importance of demand for the provision of sanitation which complements the causal factor on behavior. In retrospect, imperialism initiated sanitation activities in Uganda but it also hindered extensive expansion of access for everyone.
Uganda gained its independence in 1962, British recordings end, and leave a vacuum in documentation. Conflicts and lack of power in the administration are a contributing factor to this insufficiency. From 1962 to 1971, Milton Obote was the first head of state in the Republic of Uganda. The expectations were high because “[u]nlike neighboring Kenya, Uganda had no alien white settler class attempting to monopolize the rewards of the cashcrop economy” (Byrnes 1992: 3). This assessment contributes to Robert Young’s concept of imperialism for Uganda. Byrnes argues that the administration set progressive policies which allowed African producers to gain a high standard of living and create middle-class of educated professionals. However, she argues that the construction of new schools, Makerere University’s teaching hospital, and the Owen Falls hydroelectric project were “all gifts” from the United Kingdom (Byrnes 1992: 4). Nyeko and postcolonial theorists agree that the exploitation hindered self-development and caused later conflicts (cf. Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2009b; Nkrumah 1974; Nyeko 1996; R. J. C. Young 2001). Hence, the independence is a causal factor because it changes the complete system. The redistribution of wealth, economic prosperity, or provision of sanitation do not automatically follow.
The first major conflict emerges with the collapse of the governing coalition. In 1966, Obote suspended the new constitution and turned to the armed forces to dictate “part of Uganda by material law” (Byrnes 1992: 6). Byrnes states that the government financed allies and military instead of infrastructure (ibid.). This observation is another causal factor for the current outcome because actors do not prioritize the provision of sanitation but rather destroy toilets during conflicts. In 1971, Idi Amin Dada overthrew his reign. He restructured the system into one of the bloodiest dictatorships of the decade. The sources do not emphasize on any direct action on sanitation during the Amin administration. However, multiple aspects contribute to the hypothesis that the government did not intensively provide sanitation from 1971 to 1979. Firstly, the economy is broke; Ugandans invest substantial agricultural cultivation to survive (Byrnes 1992: 80). The Ugandan market was driven by uncertainty, and the government did not enforce good regulations. On the one hand, the export of goods plumed, and on the other, corruption, cartels, and black-market activities increased (ibid.). Byrnes argues that especially the lack of investments supported the development of the black-market (ibid.). The described economy make this element another causal factor of the process towards the outcome. The dictatorship ended with the Tanzanian-Uganda War from 1977 to 1979. This armed conflict and the Ugandan Bush-War have had an adverse impact on the provision of sanitation. Firstly, the little investments went into infrastructure, and secondly, the war had probably destroyed large proportions of existing sanitation. Idi Amin lost the conflict and fled the country in 1979. The next two years were an unstable political structure with four new governments (cf. Byrnes 1992; Nyeko 1996). During the interim period, the black-market was responsible for one third of the national output of goods and services (Byrnes 1992: 81). In 1981, Milton Obote won his second presidency in the first elections since 1962. But voter fraud and intimidation influenced the results (cf. Nyeko 1996). The results sparked a civil war between the National Resistance Army and the troops of Obote. “The Ugandan Bushwar” ended with a coup by current President Yoweri Museveni in 1985. Byrnes describes the period as bloodier than the 1970s (cf. Byrnes 1992). The paper argues that similar conclusions have to be made about this second civil war in Uganda.
The presidency of Museveni splits into two periods separated by the second constitution: 1986 to 1995 and from 1996 till today. Looking back at the current studies that linked the provision of sanitation to an improvement in health and reduction of health problems. Byrnes argues that half of all deathly cases is caused by measles, respiratory tract infections, and gastroenteritis in the second half of the 1980s (Byrnes 1992: 88). Hence, public health reoccurs as a causal factor. As a result, the new government set the provision of water services as a priority at the end of the 1980s (Byrnes 1992: 92). Furthermore, the administration recognized the importance of sanitation and began the construction of sewerage in small towns in 1988 (ibid.). The prioritization is a reaction to the health crisis and is a political intention. However, the cost for large systems and treatment facilities were too high for a fast progress for the war-torn nation. Also, the first sewerage system needed repairs and replacement because the lifespan of the pipes already exceeded (Byrnes 1992: 92; cf. Ekane et al. 2016; Nilsson 2006). Standalone latrines are expected to last ten and sewerage about 50 years (Nilsson 2006: 369; Schuen, Parkinson, and Knapp 2009: 6). The insufficient funds are obviously part of the causal factor on financing the provision of sanitation.
6.1.2 The Politics and Policy of Modern Uganda
The political system in Uganda changed with the new Constitution in 1995. It established a right to water and clean and healthy environment for its citizens; this includes the access to sanitation facilities (The Republic of Uganda 1995: Article 39). The Constitution, the Local Government Act, and Memorandum of Understanding set the new institutional separation about the competencies and responsibilities of federal ministries and regional administrations. The systematic change is the causal factor of political intention and action which guides the complete section. The division between federal and local government is highly recommended by Grossman et al. who sees a fragmentation for public goods as an effective strategy to redistribute resources and competencies for those in need (Grossman, Pierskalla, and Dean 2016: 24-25). Other studies support the hypothesis that decentralized governance of sanitation investments supports pro-poor activities (cf. Water and Sanitation Program 2011). Furthermore, the report argues that competition and awards between areas on the sub-national level may increase investments in sanitation (ibid.). The Memorandum of Understanding significantly changed hygiene activities in 2001 (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 17). First of all, the memorandum defined the current separation of competences within the government, and between those institutions and the private sector for any sanitation activities in Uganda (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 149). Furthermore, it created the “Water and Policy Committee” and implemented “Sector-wide approach” (SWAp) (ibid.). Alabaster and Kruckova argue that this was an essential step for future activities. Firstly, the committee consists of “district-level decision makers,” NGOs, and private sector participants to give advisory support to the Ministry of Water and Environment. Secondly, SWAp is a significant policy change for the whole sanitation sector. The Ministry of Water and Environment concentrates its activities on policy-making and planning and not on individual projects and service delivery. In urban areas, the National Water and Sewerage Cooperation is mandated to deliver these services. As a semi-autonomous business, it drafts performance contracts with the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) (cf. The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2013; Mugisha and Berg 2008). The Local Governments (LGs) have the decree to provide sanitation for its citizens in rural areas as part of the decentralization effort (cf. Grossman, Pierskalla, and Dean 2016; The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 360). Lastly, the MWE, National Water and Sewerage Cooperation (NWSC), and LGs can hire private cooperation for the construction of sanitation systems, and if needed can contract them for the management of sanitation systems. SWAp wants to integrate a holistic perspective on sanitation which shall result in revised guidelines for conditional grants and better coordination between ministries (Metha and Knapp 2004: 9, 20). Finally, the SWAp initiates sub-sector working groups to develop a national consensus on policy, strategy, promotion, and implementation of sanitation (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 13; Metha and Knapp 2004: 20). The reorganization of essential actors is a necessary causal condition for any government action because the governments operate according to their new competencies and responsibilities.
The MWE has to enforce the constitution by planning for investments into sanitation services and public sanitation facilities, and it shall promote good hygiene practices and sanitation in rural areas and small towns (Metha and Knapp 2004: 20). Its directorate for Water Development is the institutional arm who supervise the technical support units (TSUs), Water Supply Development Facilities (WSDF), and umbrella organizations. The TSUs support LGs in building capacity to implement water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH) programs, and the WSDF directly invest on the community level - based on a responsive approach (WHO and UN-Water 2015a). The LGs have to plan and implement water and sanitation activities in their districts, town councils, and at the sub-country level (cf. The Government of the Republic of Uganda 1997). The national institutions finance some projects with a “Conditional Grant”. At the local level, the administration distinguishes between public, community, and private activities. The local governments supervise those actions except for those in the jurisdiction of the NWSC The next section is going to present significant policies to realize Article 39 of the Constitution. In 1997, the Government of Uganda published its Vision 2025 as the “national aspirations,” for development. Also, it released the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) as a framework and guidance for sub-national actors (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2000: 1-4). The revised PEAP situates sanitation within health improvements due to its impact on the population (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2000: 10). Furthermore, it states that the federal government provides most of the resources for financing and “com- munities”10 have to pay their share (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2000: 17). In 2005, PEAP was revised again to improve the standard by prioritizing hygiene and sanitation in the health sector and household sanitation on the local level (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: xxiv-xxv, 190-221). The plan connects malaria and other illnesses with a lack of sanitation (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 26). But, the program strongly focuses on the provision of water but not on sanitation. It argues that .public information about sanitation, will enhance the health benefits of water supply” (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 28). The lack of Swap is visible for the water and sanitation sector (WSS) in the PEAP of 2005. The plan calls for standards for the housing market on sanitation which do not collide with affordability for the poor (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 76). It states that urban planning did not focus on sanitation but another bill shall be an improvement (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 135). The Environmental Health Policy of 2005 offers one general strategy with its phrase rather “some for all” than “all for some” (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 227; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2013a: 7). The thesis shows the awareness for sanitation by the national government and recommendations for actions.
In 2003, the NWSC was responsible for 15 larger towns with 2.1mil people, and LGs for 1.57mil in other urban areas (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 170). Waste management was hardly existing. For example, the PEAP states that services collect 20% of the total waste in the Kampala area (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 172). But the service and population properly only dispose 10% of their defecation (ibid.). The plan does not call for increased funding for sanitation facilities, rather emphasizes on the awareness of sanitary behavior by promotion and campaigns (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 149-50). The finances are an “outstanding challenge” in 2005 (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 190). The national government wants to focus on provision and management; NWSC and LGs have to provide access to sanitation.
Nevertheless, the PEAP set ambitious goals which were not met by the government. It draws a baseline of 56% “improved access” in rural and 65% in urban areas in 2005 (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 239). The provision has to rise to 80% for rural areas and 100% for urban areas till its completion (ibid.). The access to sanitation increased to 62% in 2008 and 68% in 2009 in rural, and 74% and 73% in urban areas. In 2010, the Vision 2025 and the PEAP were replaced by the Uganda Vision 2040. The 30 year period is framed by a general development strategy and divided into six consecutive National Development Plans (NDPs I-VI) which further detail the plan for its period. The object of investigation has already explained the differences in monitoring between the strict JMP and the Ugandan institutions. Henceforth, the thesis marks the broader and unspecific classifications as a causal factor which impacts is not clear at this point.
The Vision 2040 claims that the improvement of sanitation in households is a priority to realize the human right to a decent shelter (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: 93). Moreover, the strategy recognizes the broad access to unimproved sanitation facilities, lack of hand washing facilities, and soap around the facility (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: 94). The lack of sanitation and hygiene causes “over 70 percent of the disease burden” of the public health in Uganda (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: 65). Next to repetitive political intention as a causal factor, the importance of public health is present in the new strategy. Therefore, the Vision 2040 refers to the constitutional article on a clean and healthy environment but only as an aspiration and reminder to realize its international commitments (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 10, 98). The vision does not connect with the right to a clean and healthy environment with a right to have access to sanitation. Furthermore, the Vision's sanitation target is the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7.C: To “...halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to.basic sanitation” (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 98-99; cf. UN Department of Public Information 2013). Besides, the strategy does not consider the period after the MDGs which are 35 years of the Vision 2040. It defines actions to achieve these goals and increase public health in Uganda. It states that the public sector is going to construct “.sanitation systems to all parts of the country” and is going to advocate for “[b]ulk water treatment and supply systems that cover significant [urban] areas” (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: 65). The NDPs are going to explain the specific public action to improve sanitation. Their purpose is to set current goals and directions for the MWE, the LGs, and other actors in the sanitation sector (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2013 a: 7). The national government has changed its strategy on sanitation in Uganda: Originally, the NWSC and LGs have the mandate to invest in household sanitation. But apparently, the national institutions proposed to provide sanitation for the public.
The first plan names sanitation as one of eight objectives of “increasing access to quality social services” in its period (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 38-39). The NDP I also renews the claim to upgrade existing facilities (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 268). The plan emphasizes on human resources, the promotion of hygienic behavior, re-centralization to coordinate activities, and increasing funds for rural growth centers and households as prioritized methods to improve access to sanitation (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 271-72). The government plans to expand, modernize and construct sewerage and treatment facilities in towns with a large water system (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 273).
The NDP II sets the more detailed policy for 2015 to 2020. The plan emphasizes the importance of behavior change; it adds the concept of Community Led Total Sanitation11 (CLTS) as the key strategy especially for rural areas (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 204). The plan does not discuss human resources, but it intends to strengthen the law enforcement bodies to enforce sanitation regulations (ibid.). Another objective is the call for efficient “inter-sectoral collaboration” between MWE, Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES), Ministry of Health (MoH), and the LGs to increase public performance (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 188-89, 204). The NDP II significantly adjusts its perspective on the construction of sanitation facilities by re-prioritization of production and investments. Firstly, the plan shifts its articulation from investments to modernization and expansion of sewerage and satellite systems in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (cf. The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015). Secondly, the program encourages private actors to invest in the sludge collection and disposal to improve the provision of small-scale sanitation in Uganda (ibid.). However, the NDP II explains that the government must invest and promote sanitation in rural areas because local markets are too inefficient due to high administration barriers (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 234). Hence, resources do not follow the new paradigm and rather support the development of the sanitation market (ibid.). These are references to other causal factors. The promotion of sanitation aims for behavior as a causal factor, and the weak sanitation market is part of the Ugandan economy. Moreover, the MWE states that its policy and efforts are actions to achieve the SDGs (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2017: xiii).
The policy framework on sanitation has been analyzed by some authors to find the best methods.
Firstly, Elledge et al. describe that absence of a policy hinders the public and private sector to invest because it is not on the nation’s agenda (Elledge et al. 2002: 9-10). The weaknesses or lack of policies have framed Uganda from its independence till Museveni took office. The authors argue a paradigm shift towards sanitation began with the presidency of Museveni. The government established new sanitation policies and regulations for a range of sectors (Elledge et al. 2002: 5). However, the “enthusiasm” for laws, plans, and policies was not transferred to a material implementation of the policies and sanitation facilities (ibid.). They argue that lack of provision results from the mandate of LGs who do not prioritize the challenge because of limited resources and competing sectors for investment (ibid.). As of 2002, the weak implementation is partially compensated by external donations, but those and the government primarily focus on sanitation as a sub-sector of water and favor urban over rural areas for their projects (ibid.). In contrast to old policies, Elledge et al. argue that the call for fragmentation and decentralized management increased access to sanitation (Elledge et al. 2002: 63). The authors emphasize that sub-national institution must develop policies oriented on national policy to act upon their mandate for sanitation provision (Elledge et al. 2002: 10). In contrast, Seppala argues that the national policy on sanitation in Kenya did not lead to an increase of implementation (cf. Seppala 2002). Ekane et al. add that poor coordination between actors and a weak prioritization hinder an effective policy in sub-Saharan countries (Ekane et al. 2014: 5-10). Furthermore, the authors agree with Guidelines for the Assessment of National Sanitation Policies: Strategic Report 2 by Elledge et al. on the impact of sanitation on different societal levels (Ekane et al. 2014: 4). Both studies agree that a national policy has to include the legal framework, the economy, detailed information, and clear responsibilities (ibid.)(Elledge et al. 2002: 6-7). But, Ekane et al. differ in the range of description because they suggest to include differences and conflicts of the sanitation sector (Ekane et al. 2014: 4). Governments have received recommendations and advice to have a substantial impact on various aspects of hygiene. The meta-study by Galan, Kim, and Graham indicate that most of the 34 analyzed sub-Saharan countries have a national policy on sanitation but it does not show or cause direct investments or implementation of facilities or related actives (cf. Galan, Kim, and Graham 2013). Henceforth, the recent study by Ekane et al. affirms that researchers can monitor policies and its implementation (Ekane et al. 2016: 6). But they can not conclusively state that a particular improvement does not resolve policy challenges. The book refers to specific policies, institutional arrangements, and approaches that aim for coverage or behavior change in any system and under different circumstances. Ekane et al., and Alabaster and Kruckova agree that sanitation policy must address specific groups, areas, and wealth to be successfully implemented because executive actors are required to act upon such policies (cf. Alabaster and Kruckova 2015; Ekane et al. 2016). Besides, they agree with the NDP that effective coordination between actors is a causal factor for success.
Finally, the thesis is going to examine the economy of Uganda to identify periods of prosperity and crisis. Before 1962, the British Colonial Office established the Uganda Protectorate as an agricultural sector that exports cotton, tea, and other products. The institutional discrimination and exploitation did not create a prosperous economy for all. After its independence, Obote's socialism fought inner conflicts, and he maintained his power by local deals instead of federal investments (Byrnes 1992: 20-24). The military coup by Amin ended international trade with most countries (Byrnes 1992: 28). In 1972, he expelled 50,000 Asians from Uganda and transferred their businesses to military people (ibid.). This action caused a strong economic backlash because the knowhow left and trade networks ended. In 1978, the weakest economic period in Uganda began with an international trade boycott (Byrnes 1992: 29). A month later, the Uganda-Tanzanian war began to rampage through the south. Subsequently, the Uganda Bush-War followed and proved to be bloodier than the dictatorship of Amin and the previous war (Byrnes 1992: 34). The economy slowly stabilized with the victory of Museveni in 1986. The World Bank did not register a single year with negative growth since then. In the 1980s, the GDP slowly increase, but high population growth shrinks the GDP per person. The citizen reached its peak in 1988 with US$401.1 and stay there till 2006/07. Meanwhile, the new constitution correlates with the highest growth in history: 11.52% in 1995. The Republic continues to multiply and the second largest growth of 10.78% pushes for the new peak. Curiously, the country consistently grows by more than 3% to 9%, but the GDP does not congruent with these findings. Hence, grow itself does not follow a measured improvement in the economy or average wealth.
In retrospect, the second part provides an analysis of the development of the post-independence politics and sanitation policy. After decades of unrest and conflict, the current president elevated the priority of sanitation and implemented strategies to tackle coverage. The Uganda Vision 2040 and NDP II are the current guidance for the implementation of any sanitation-related activities till 2020 respectively 2040. It prioritizes behavior change, law enforcement, and construction in urban areas. Policy research suggests that the current publications show an intent to improve sanitation but the thesis has to discuss the actions. But Seppala and Nillson, among others, argue that provision has been weak and varied from the nation’s targets until the release of the first report.
6.1.3 Provision: Coverage, Goals, and Financing Sanitation
The implementation of sanitation facilities is the physical counterpart of the lack of access to sanitation. Hutton and Haller estimate that the return for US$1 is US$5-28 for successful interventions mainly because users have more time in their lives for any activity (cf. Hutton and Haller 2004). A core task is to determine whether the provision of sanitation facilities and sanitation services are public goods in Uganda. Introduced by Samuelson, the pure public good has two characteristics: Non-excludability and non-rival consumption (cf. Holcombe 1997; Samuelson 1954; Stiglitz 2000). Sanitation does not qualify as a public good because a consumer and a single system have limits on the total number of users. Nevertheless, access to improved sanitation decreases the extra user cost for the population. Additionally, a provider does not call for obstruction because of the extent of access and a solid collection of fees. If the government starts to provide such a public good, it commonly levies taxes or a user fee to bear the cost of investments, consumption - including over- and underconsumption - and transaction costs (cf. Stiglitz 2000).
In Uganda, the private sector does not provide sanitation services to the population. A breakdown of the sanitation market shows that in the mid-1990s only 5% of sanitation was funded by domestic private companies in the developing world (cf. Prynn and Sunman 2000). Therefore, the government decided to be the leading actor in the sanitation sector because of the last negative impacts and potential gains from access to sanitation. Today, Uganda has fragmented the provision of sanitation like the sanitation policy. Firstly, the NWSC has to provide access to sanitation for cities and larger towns according to periodical performance contracts (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 63). Everywhere else the LGs have to provide sanitation for its residents. They have similar contracts with the MWE (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 65). The regulations allow to contract private actors for waste collection, construction, and maintenance of facilities and systems, or as consultants for the administration (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 66).
The next step is to look at the goals, the evidence, and the monitoring process in Uganda. Yet, another contributing element of the causal process of political intention and action. In its current form, the earliest plans are the PEAPs from 1997 to 2008 based on the Uganda Vision 2025. The programs do not set any target for the provision of sanitation but embraces monitoring by facilities used within households. In this period, the access to improved sanitation facilities (ISF) rose from 14.9%12 to 17.5%, and OD sank from 16.1% to 10.3% (cf. The World Bank 2017). The revised PEAP does not present any additional data on the access to sanitation in 2000. The second revision insinuates, by citing the Ministry of Water, Landscape, Environment (now MWE) 2003 report, that coverage in urban areas divided in 8% access to sewerage and 92% to onsite sanitation; however, it is not fully covered (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 172). The misleading information damages the reputation of the Ugandan state. Nilssons observed that the government shifted investments from sewerage to unimproved facilities between the 1990s and mid-2000s (Nilsson 2006: 369). Moreover, the PEAP states that people have access to a variety of unimproved or improved facilities, or defecate openly in rural areas (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 172). The report indicates that solid waste management is almost nonexistent (ibid.). In contrast, the PEAP (2005) sets the baseline of coverage at 56% in rural areas, and 65% in urban areas; 70% are functional if combined with water facilities 2003 (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 239). The plan does not provide more data about its monitoring process but in comparison with the JMP, it is apparent that the PEAP includes shared and various forms of unimproved facilities to deliver these numbers. Moreover, the paragraph on the MDGs does not refer to sanitation(Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 222). This omission may be the result of significantly different data by the JMP who is mandated to monitor the process towards the MDGs.
The most recent national data are the Sector Performance Report (SPR) 2016, NDP II, and the MPS of 2016; their reverse estimations start in 2005 with access to “household sanitation”13 of 57-58% as its baseline (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016b: 103).However, the World Bank estimates that the access to ISF was at 16.8% and OD at 11.9% in 2005 (cf. The World Bank 2017; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2004: 38). Looking back at the 2nd revised PEAP, it estimated coverage of 80% in rural and 100% in urban areas in 2008 - these were neither met by national nor by international definitions (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 239). The access to household sanitation increased to 61-62% but only 17.5% ISF in 2008 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016b: 103; cf. The World Bank 2017; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2010: 50). The expiring Uganda Vision 2025 was renewed as Uganda Vision 2040 which plans to end with total coverage of “sanitation systems” and to “improve the sanitation status of a household” (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: 65, 93). Those phrases are not defined in the Vision 2040 or correlating documents as the NDP. Hence, the national policy does not realize the recommendations by Alabaster and Kruckova, and Ekane et al. (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 13; Ekane et al. 2016: 5-8; The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a; cf. The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b). No projection reached its claimed national targets by the MWE’s estimation in 2016-17 (cf. The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a; Uganda Ministry of Health 2015; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2008, 2013b, 2015b).
The NDP II and SPR 2016 describe a significant improvement of access to household sanitation till their publications in 2015. In 2009, the coverage improved by 5-7% to 67-68% and continuously grew to 74-75% in the FY2013/1414 (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 289; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016b: 103). In contrast, the JMP and World Bank's Open Data monitored a slow progress. They estimate that the 17,8% ISF and 9.8% OD grew respectively shrank to 19.1% and 7,2% by 2014 (The World Bank 2017; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2012: 52, 2015: 74). The last published data by the JMP states that 19.1% have access to ISF, 14% to shared facilities, 60% to unimproved facilities, and 7.2% still defecate in the open (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). The MWEs Sector Performance Report 2015 misquotes the JMP’s Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and MDG Assessment. It states that 35% instead of 17% in rural and 34% instead of 29% in urban areas have access to ISF (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015b: v; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). Furthermore, the ministry states 50% instead of 44% use shared, 15% instead of 25% use unimproved toilets, and 2% instead of 1% defecate openly in urban areas. Nevertheless, these favorable percentages diminished by overestimating OD by 2% in rural areas (ibid.). The report misleads stakeholders and actor. It provides a false situation of access to sanitation especially to those not checking the global monitoring data. But, it is unlikely that the MWE deliberately falsified data because they do not profit from this situation like reaching the MDG on sanitation. Neither 75-77% access to (household) sanitation, nor JMP’s estimation of 92.8% sanitation coverage reach the goal to half the population “without access to basic sanitation” (Uganda Ministry of Health 2015: 27; The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 289; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016b: 3, 103; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). Hence, the Uganda Vision 2040 has not achieved its first and only sanitation goal. The access to any sanitation had to decline from 20% of 17,535mil people in 1990 to 4.47% of 40,141mil people in 2015 to realize MDG7.C, but 7.2% OD is only “[l]imited or no progress” (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). These setbacks do not impact future optimistic targets. The MWE projects total coverage with a “safely managed sanitation process”15 by the end of FY2020/21 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2017: xiv). The NDP II is more conservative and projects 80% household coverage by the end of its period in 2020 (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 289). It further states that 80%-90% of sanitation facilities must work and be functional (ibid.). The Sector Development Planning Guidelines refers to the SDG6.2 which states that “by 2030, achieve access to affordable and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation...” as the “post-2015 recommendations” (National Planning Authority 2015: 83, 87; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2013 a: xiii). The government appears to target the SDG for sanitation and open defecation. However, the government and ministries do not lay out a path, define affordable and proper facilities, or explain a safe implementation process.
The national and local administrations finance sanitation facilities based on their institutional structures of mandates and competencies. Firstly, it is important to note that the NWSC is an off-budget allocation and separated from the MWE (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 26). Their performance contracts state the subsidies received by the Government of Uganda. The chapter highlights the difficulty of a full financial assessment in Uganda because official documentation is not consistent in its definition and reports. Such reports may not split sanitation from the joint WSS, and national, rural, or urban statistics may be incomplete. Thus, the next paragraphs are going to extensively complete the causal factor on financing.
Uganda spent USh17.4bn16 for the WSS in 1999/2000 (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2000: 20). The PEAP projected a substantial increase in the budget for the next three years with USh37.6bn, USh39.5bn, and USh44.6bn from 2000/01 to 2003/04 (ibid.). These estimations contradict the statement: “[S]ome cost for rural sanitation; would be higher if subsidi[z]ed sanplants17 are included” (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2000: 35). The quote shows a rather distant and uninformed ministry because the plan underestimates the cost for the majority. The next PEAP distances itself further from financing sanitation because it does not set a budget allocation for sanitation (cf. Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005). The 2002/03 budget states expenditure of about USh89bn for water and USh375bn for heath which probably includes investments for sanitation (Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2005: 199). Thomson estimates that the low prioritization for household sanitation led to a significant reduction of funds at the MoH18 (Thomson 2004: 2). In 1998/99, its DWD spent 46% of its budget on sanitation and only 18% in 2005 (ibid.). The activities focused on activities in schools which accounted for 37% to 63% of the total sanitation budget at the time (ibid.).
In 2006, the World Bank's Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) estimated that the Government of Uganda annually has to spend US$143mil for 10 years to reach an 83% basic sanitation coverage (The World Bank Water Sanitation Program 2006: 93). However, the budget did not reach the WSP’s estimations: The budget was US$87mil for the 2005/06(The World Bank Water Sanitation Program 2006: 94). Furthermore, the public expenditure accounts only for 28.7%; 68.9% came from donors (official development assistance and nongovernmental organizations); but the total disbursement was US$30mil short of which 65% by donors (ibid.).
The next financial reports are published in the Ministry Policy Statement 2009. The MWE spent USh13.222bn for urban and USh5.745bn for the urban water and sanitation sector in 2007/08 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2009a: 30, 39). The following year, the budget increased to USh18.919bn for urban sanitation and decreased for rural sanitation to Ush5.202bn (ibid.). Public Ugandan reports do not reevaluate their projections from 2009/10 to 2011/12; the budget for urban sanitation was projected to stay below 18bn for this period, and rural sanitation only increases in its last target to USh6.135bn (ibid.). Alabaster and Kruckova state that the MWE spent US$24.2mil for urban and US$44.9mil for rural areas on sanitation in 2010/11(Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 12). The documentation continues to be insufficient; only the GLAAS report 2013/14 allocates the total budget at USh253.96bn (government and donors) with only 59.5% released at its publication (cf. WHO and UN-Water 2015c).
The weak documentation makes a turn since the MPS in 2015. The MWE makes sanitation an independent entity. The approved resources are for urban areas USh82,426bn and USh150,696bn and rural areas USh26,217bn and USh72,502bn for the years 2013/14 and 2014/15 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015a: 163). The Ministry Policy Statement 2016 states that the government spent the same funds in 2013/14 and 2014/15 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016a: 175). It may be possible that the data is wrongly quoted but if not it is a stagnation of investments for sanitation activities and USh100bn less for the sanitation sector than expected. The MWE spent USh154.132bn for urban and USh50.679bn on rural sanitation in 2015/16(Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2017: 8). The earlier estimations were again too high with USh217.072bn in 2015 and USh213.006bn in 2016 for urban sanitation activities (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015a: 163, 2016a: 175). Both statements expected USh64.644bn for rural sanitation in 2015/16 (ibid.). The review shows that predictions of investment are always too high. Therefore, the latest projected allocations may be too high as well. The budget for sanitation is expected to be to USh136.788bn, or USh289.102bn, or USh251.105bn urban sanitation in 2016/17 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015a: 163, 2016a: 175, 2017: 8). Furthermore, the MPS expect to spend Ush48.962bn or USh92.95bn for rural sanitation (ibid.). They claim that the public will invest between USh137.915bn and USh173.968bn for urban and USh52.234bn to USh82.928bn for rural areas in the next fiscal year (ibid.). In 2018/19, the MPS 2016 expects to have USh126.92bn for urban and USh51.688bn for rural sanitation (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016a: 175). The last statement updates to these projections to USh220.424bn and USh88.892bn (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2017: 8). Additionally, it makes the projections until 2021/22, but it is hard to discuss accuracy. The statement says for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 that rural activities are going to be about USh80bn and urban sanitation increases to USh283.476bn and USh247.756bn (ibid.). The distance of this fiscal year may be a sufficient condition that the budget projections are going to increase in prospective policy statements. Nevertheless, long-term projects are difficult to realize without consistency till 2021/22. The financial instability is a strong causal factor throughout the thesis. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in its GLAAS report from 2014 that 77% of all analyzed 83 countries indicate that their water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector lacks sufficient funding for their national and international targets (WHO 2014: 9). The impact of stronger national policies on the budget can not be measured but the public increases their budget for sanitation when not cut again. Moreover, the inconsistency of studies does not make the national policy a causal factor but the necessity is paramount for the public, administration, and other actors to execute accordingly.
6.1.4 Obstacles of Sanitation Provision
Firstly, the political situation has multiple factors that hinder an effective implementation of sanitation facilities in Uganda. The praised decentralization by Grossman et al. has numerous critical factors which restrain the realization of sanitation activities. For example, LGs criticize budget cuts for the provision of sanitation by the national government (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 31; The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 202). They have to carry USh8bn from 2015 into the next fiscal period because their funds were cut (ibid.). In contrast, Alabaster and Kruckova argue that Local Governments do not have the awareness and realize the problems of sanitation (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 184). Accordingly, the section begin with decentralization as a political action and financing as causal factors. Similarly, the National Development Plan II states that the low priority for sanitation by local governments is one cause for weak coverage in rural areas (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 34, 202). The WSP agrees that LGs give sanitation a lower priority than other investments (Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region 2011: 23). Its study showed that a lack of transparency and competing priorities hinder investments for sanitation in India and Senegal (ibid.: 24). Therefore, Alabaster and Kruckova suggest that the government of Uganda must publicly address the challenges and compliance of LGs (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126). The objective is to trigger their interest, demonstrate the significance of sanitation, and expand their activities to realize national targets (ibid.). The paragraph introduced another factor for the collection of necessary causal configuration to provide sanitation. The lack of compliance and inaction is significant because its their mandate to provide sanitation for the majority of Uganda.
Furthermore, politicians can obstruct the provision of sanitation activities - national and local. Mcloughlin and Batley’s The Politics of What Works in Service Delivery: An Evidence-Based Review hypothesize that the delivery of public services will increase if they are visible, provide political capital, and can be linked to an individual politician (Mcloughlin 2012: 6). The authors confirm their observation in their most recent publication. Hence, services with a “low visibility and poor at- tributability” indicate that politicians do not make such a service priority (cf. Batley and Mcloughlin 2015). The next step is to evaluate whether the provision of sanitation is such a public service that could have an impact on the decision of politicians. The differences in projects and types prevent an individual answer. A household facility has a significant impact on a single family but does not instantly give full publicity. Furthermore, the less populated an area, the fewer people are informed about a politicians action which gives rural areas a disadvantage. In cities, citizens require a sewerage system instead of on-site sanitation facilities. Firstly, the announcement and complete connection of a proportion of a community to a sewerage network will have a positive reward. However, the construction and the fact that pipes lay underground decrease the potential political capital for a politician. Lastly, the construction of sanitation for public places and building like schools probably offer the largest political capital because it is visible and accessible by the public. The shift of government funds from households to sanitation in public school is an indicator of such an effect in Uganda (cf. Alabaster and Kruckova 2015)
Mcloughlin and Batley quote various sources and with different theories which all that incentives and personal gain are probable motivators for the provision of public services (Mcloughlin 2012: 9). Moreover, multiple authors have hypothesized that there is a correlation between elections as incentives and higher spending such actions (cf. Stasavage 1999). Stasavage argues that the increase in public services is not only depended on elections. The author names an informed electorate with access to government policies, irrational voting behavior, and candidates "their campaign strategy” as additional features (Stasavage 1999: 71). Mcloughlin and Batley sum up that some studies show an impact while other do not (cf. Mcloughlin 2012). Besides, the WSP partially confirms that elections or career advantages are possible incentives for pro-poor sanitation activities (Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region 2011: 43). Finally, Alabaster and Kruckova observed that many local politicians mislead the public with false information about their sanitation actions to gain political capital (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 184). They are held in high esteem but do not use national policy or “guide a smooth implementation of WASH service” (ibid.). These are questionable actions by politicians on the micro-level. Batley and Mcloughlin’s The Politics of Public Services states that political will, incentives, and strong institutional structures have a crucial impact on the performance of sanitation providers (Batley and Mcloughlin 2015: 275). In the governmental realization of policies, the thesis found obstructing factors in the institutional position, the implementation, and the financing of sanitation. Firstly, the exposition has established a thorough analysis of the Ugandan policy on sanitation with many weaknesses and low priority. The governments have realized the problem of sanitation and the devastating impacts, but concrete actions are rather small. For example, the revised PEAP does not set any goal of provision or access, lacks any sound financial estimations, and only focuses on vague short-term goals (cf. Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 2000). The government has steadily improved, but others have arisen since. The NDP argues that the entanglement of institutions hinders “policy formulation, planning, implementation, and regulation” (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 274). The plan recommends that the formulation of policies and planning is institutionally distinct from implementation and regulation of sanitation facilities and activities (ibid.). Alabaster and Kruckova argue that local leaders do not implement and realize national guidelines and sector policies for sanitation (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126). In retrospect, individual actors can have a significant impact on the provision and improvement of access to sanitation in Uganda. Therefore, the thesis expands the collective intention by the government to individual politicians who contribute to the process towards the current status of sanitation as part of the necessary condition.
The analysis of the finances for activities has shown that the government inconsistently spends not enough resources to provide adequate sanitation. The funds for the MWE and the LGs are adequately monitored since the implementation of the Uganda Vision 2040. But they fluctuate too much which may hinder long-term financing. Also, the financial resources must account for other factors which may have an impact on the needs and demand for sanitation coverage. Firstly, the NDP I states that the funds for the water and sanitation sector are too small to meet the high population growth and urbanization (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 271, 2015: 202). The JMP states that in 1990 11% of 17.535mil lived in urban areas in Uganda (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme 2015: 74). The proportion increased to 16% of 40.141mil in 2015 (ibid.). Secondly, the sanitation sector does not have the necessary funds to fulfill its needs in rural areas (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 202). For example, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department had to carry “un-cleared bills from service providers” of about Ush8bn into 2015/16 because of those actions (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 31; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015b: 42). Finally, water and sanitation activities have limited access to other funds such as those particularly reserved for infrastructure (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 271). In general, the financial instability and lack of funds for the sanitation sector are a repetitive causal mechanism in Uganda which has a keen impact on the provision of sanitation facilities. Moreover, the lower priority and systematic structure obstruct an efficient and responsive implementation by the national government.
The inherent political and policy challenges have to be dealt with by employees and works under the umbrella term human resources. But the human resources have an inherent problem which slows down the implementation process for the sanitation sector which make it an individual causal factor. The Uganda Vision 2040 acknowledges the “underdeveloped human resources” in the country (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: III). The plan sets the direction as “maximizing the benefits of the demographic dividend" (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010b: 68). The methodology is to collect problems, to provide academic education and advanced training, to review the legal framework, and to build institutional cooperation with other countries and international companies to solve the challenges of the human resource sector. Looking at sanitation, the NDP documented that this industry lacks employees (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 271). The most problematic area is the LG level and the countryside. The GLASS report 2013/14 names the three “most limiting factor affecting WASH human resources” in its study (WHO and UN-Water 2015b: 34). Firstly, employees in the water and sanitation sector prefer to work in urban instead of rural areas which leads to a shortage of workers. As a result, the Ministry of Water and Environment seized control over the recruitment process because of the low number of staff (WHO and UN-Water 2015b: 17). Nevertheless, the GLAAS report argues that the political interference in the hiring process is another limiting factor for human resources in the water and sanitation sector. The report does not specify its concerns, but the inefficiency may be the leading cause. Furthermore, the report does not state that the centralization prevents or decreases this limiting factor. Lastly, the government had stopped the recruitment of new workers in the water and sanitation sector despite the limited number of employees (WHO and UN-Water 2015b: 34). This freeze caused a “high influx in contract staff’ and led to the hiring of expensive consultants (ibid.). The following report is the second National Development Plan which frames the current objective to improve the “weak public sector” and “inadequate quantity and quality of human resources” (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 3). The plan recognizes problems in information sphere for example in “information and communication technology” (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 26, 28). The NDP II states that LGs have a “human resource capacity gap” to deliver their mandated services under the decentralization act - including sanitation (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 73). These are the most recent publication on human resources; the MWE’s MPS and SPR do not discuss the challenge for human resources (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015b, 2016b, 2016a, 2017).
Next to the human factors, the field of infrastructure has been subject to diverse criticism for example for insufficient infrastructure, waste management, unplanned settlements, and sanitation facilities themselves. Firstly, on the one hand, Alabaster and Kruckova argue that rural areas have the insufficient infrastructure to provide sanitation (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 125). For example, the environmental staff does not have enough transporters for tasks such as the monitoring of provision. On the other, waste management is not available or affordable for on-site facilities for every household in urban areas (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126). Alabaster and Kruckova highlight urbanization, too high emptying fees, and lack of emptying infrastructure itself as key obstacles for adequate sanitation service. As a result, illegal dumping and black-market structure have established because of the demand to empty full latrines. Alabaster and Kruckova argue the government of Uganda has inadequate legal regulations and weak enforcement for proper fecal sludge management (ibid.). This vacuum causes the illegal collection and dumping of waste which is a public health risk and damages the environment (ibid.). Thirdly, the implementation of sewerage is particularly challenging for unplanned settlements because the institutions do not have the settlement’s blueprints or maps (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2010a: 271). Finally, the NDP II describes the implemented sanitation facilities and activities as non-modern technologies (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 202). The weak construction makes them susceptible to damage by floods and droughts which become more frequent because of climate change (ibid.) In rural areas, collapsing soil increase the demand for appropriate facilities which have high costs (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 125). Furthermore, the MWE’s Sector Performance Report 2015 argues that the center’s current human resource capacity cannot meet the demands with its public research activities (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015b: 42). The Appropriate Technology Center for Water and Sanitation has to increase its performance to develop affordable and sustainable facilities to reach the national goals in the water and sanitation sector. The paragraph establishes infrastructure as a causal factor.
These obstacles are part of the framework and have an impact on the sanitation sector. The following paragraphs are going to present pressing challenges of public sanitation activities, foremost the physical provision of facilities. The National Development Plan II states that the mandated institutions poorly execute operation and maintenance of sanitation (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 202). The irregular service and external damage by nature increase a deterioration of facilities and shorts their lifespan. Damaged sanitation consequently may cause higher costs for the public. People lose their coverage if such systems do not receive maintenance or replacement. Additionally, the government regulates and monitors the access to sanitation in Uganda as part of its mandate.
A critical factor for effective monitoring and regulating are regular progress reports by the providers. However, local administrations rarely provide reports from rural areas and justify their actions by blaming long distances high cost for adequate monitoring (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 65). Furthermore, the NDP II states that institutions, their supply, and enforcement mechanisms for existing laws and regulations are particularly weak in rural areas (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 34, 202). For urban water and sanitation supply, the NDP argues that there is an “inadequate institutional capacity.. .and low prioritization of sanitation and hygiene at all levels” (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 202). This statement increases criticism and unsatisfaction with the current status and institutional behavior for sanitation in urban areas.
Looking back at the criticism of the GLASS report on political interference in the recruitment process, the postcolonial theorist Mbembe argues that venality and corruption were the biggest challenges to ensure stability in post-independence nations (Mbembe 2001: 44-50). Institutions were constructed to collect funds and regionally redistribute but not to finance public goods (Mbembe 2001: 44). The intransparent actions may be an obstacle and waste resources in the sanitation sector. The quoted reports do not discuss probable challenges, but it must be taken into account at every level of administration because of its opaque and dangerous impact on public activities.
Next to the goal and regulating institutions, the national government recognizes “the inadequate framework for effectively regulating” the sanitation sector in urban areas as a major challenge (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 63). Uganda Country Mapping: The Status of Implementation and Monitoring of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation names contracts and their compliance, monitoring, evaluating, sanitation and reward system, transparency and accountability, pro-poor interventions, assets and investment management, and high tariffs as areas that need improvement (ibid.). For example, the government of Uganda as previously discussed does not adequately control fecal sludge management which causes illegal dumping activities (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126).
Lastly, the difference of definition for adequate sanitation may be an obstacle of efficient and healthy sanitation coverage. The Republic of Uganda does not use the stricter sanitation ladder for their national monitoring system. This chapter consequently illustrates that the government of Uganda and the MWE use a broad range of terminology to describe their - not fully disclose - concept of access and provision of sanitation facilities for the public. Moreover, these agencies copy JMP's language without its definitions, coin neologisms, and misquote global monitoring data. These actions may not have a direct impact on the physical implementation of sanitation facilities, but the administration and employees do not have a clear guidance and frame for their investments, actions, and other sanitation activities.
In contrast to systematic challenges and obstacles, the behavior and actions of individuals have been introduced as a causal factor. On the one hand, Alabaster and Kruckova hypothesize that the low-income in Uganda is responsible for the weak demand for sanitation in Uganda (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 125). Inadequate income results in the lack of capital to invest in a sanitation facility or the connection to an existing network (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 63). Moreover, people find it hard to pay loans for sanitation back (ibid.). On the other hand, McLoughlin and Batley argue that a government reacts to the citizen's demands and is responsive to incentives such as elections for public goods in general (Mcloughlin 2012: 6). The GLAAS Report 2013/14 praises the good strategies and plan of the national government. However, the lack of adequate funding does not create a demand for sanitation in rural areas (WHO and UN-Water 2015a: 25). Next, to monetary reasons, the people of Uganda have “negative customary beliefs and lack of sensitization” for sanitation activities which leads to poor hygiene practices (The Government of the Republic of Uganda 2015: 202). Furthermore, Alabaster and Kruckova observed that “most households are not willing to borrow for sanitation” (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126). The authors do not elaborate on the details for this observation, but the cultural barrier and low-income make their statement sound. Another cultural barrier is that communities just slowly accept new technologies which could delay the development, design, and implementation of stable and modern improved sanitation facilities (ibid.). Additionally, modern technologies and designs have to withstand challenges like extreme weather conditions.
Finally, Alabaster and Kruckova’ state that the market for sanitation is poorly developed in urban areas because of a lack of facilities (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 122). The market does not provide affordable products and services for potential consumers; only a few businesses offer such products on a small scale and not for the general population (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 122, 125). Moreover, the private sector provides a weak disposal system. The service is not affordable for the majority and poorly executed in urban areas (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126). Lastly, Alabaster and Kruckova argues that the private sector aims for high-profit margins with their sanitation products which are not affordable by the majority of the population (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 125-26). Therefore, the authors argue that the national government shall release funds for improved sanitation facilities, work with entrepreneurs, and focus on plastic products to create affordable cheap buildings (ibid.).
6.1.5 Solution to Provide Sanitation
This wide range of criticism is not static and tackled. The government of Uganda has taken the initiative to solve various problems to realize their sanitation goals and achieve the SDGs. Firstly, the theorized advantage of decentralization of public goods has not effectively been working for the sanitation sector. The LGs do not allege their actions with the policies and goals of the national government. Therefore, the MWE has taken back competences to fasten the progress of provision (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 126). The ministry has established a licensing system for service providers in small towns to ensure an efficient and fruitful provision. It has to confirm the external- ization of sanitation services by LGs. Furthermore, the government has expanded the mandate of the NWSC to smaller cities and towns. The ministry is responsible for the construction and assessment of waste management and its facilities. Despite the centralization, the latter still have the mandate to provide water and sanitation for its citizens in all areas except for those served by the NWSC. Also, the MWE publishes construction manuals and business plans to support sanitation activities by all stakeholders (ibid.).
Regarding the income challenge, Alabaster and Kruckova highlight that the government focuses on sanitation activities in poor settlements with low-cost technologies (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 64). In 2015, the government discussed a proposal for an evaluation of principalities, funding, and assistance (ibid.). Its outcome is not revealed in later government publications; they examine and highlight the need to give pro-poor activities more room, but individual specialized efforts cannot be found in their statements (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016b, 2016a, 2017). Concerning urban and rural provision, the Ministry of Water and Environment separates its resources between urban sanitation and rural sanitation. A key factor is the outsourcing of urban sanitation activities to the semi-autonomous NWSC. The national ministry disconnects itself from the provision of household sanitation facilities but instead invests a significant proportion in promotion and awareness campaigns, and the construction of publicly accessible facilities. Furthermore, the MWE realizes its mandate in the policy sector, regulations, enforcement, monitoring, and strategic planning for the water and sanitation sector.
A recurring problem is an unstable and inefficient distribution and expenditure of financial resources of the national government. Alabaster and Kruckova highlight the “District Sanitation Conditional Grant” and “Revised Conditional Grant” as two sustainable financial mechanisms to realize sanitation in Uganda (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 15, 119). The Ministry of Water and Environment set the goal “Open Defecation Free”(ODF) as its primary aim. The grants are linked to CLTS as its approach and are open to local methods of implementation to meet their needs and understanding. However, these guidelines are not implemented, enforced, or binding for any recipient of the grant. Moreover, the districts do not sufficiently monitor and report on their progress toward the ODF status. Alabaster and Kruckova argue that the annual change of beneficiary communities cause the insufficient cooperation of Local Governments (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 125). Accordingly, the authors favor that conditional grants are given based on a report- and incentives-oriented system. The funds are going to increase for districts that regularly report their progress and improve their sanitation coverage towards an Open Defecation Free status. This chapter collected so far the political, administrative and other mechanisms that influence the process toward the outcome of interest of the thesis. The following two paragraphs present critical domestic and international legal frameworks and the economic development of the Republic of Uganda to highlight their causal mechanism in this analysis.
Firstly, the paper looks at the international sphere. In 2015, the right to sanitation became independent human right.19 Leo Heller, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, identifies three features which support the distinction of water and sanitation as to separate rights (cf. Leo Heller 2015). Firstly, the right to sanitation has relationship with the independent human rights to health and education.20 Secondly, the right to sanitation has components which do not fit on the right to drinking water. For example, a toilet must guarantee privacy and dignity. Lastly, sanitation has received less priority than water, but the lack of adequate access to sanitation is four times higher than the lack of access to safe drinking water. Furthermore, the principles of the human right are non-discrimination21, available information22, government accountability23, and to balance environmentally, social, and economic sustainability (United Nations General Assembly 1976: Supra Note 99, Art. 2; Roaf, Winkler, and Schiessl 2014: 30-32). In contrast, the thesis has already described Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (The Republic of Uganda 1995: Article 39). Next, “Article 17 (j)” states that “[i]t is the duty of every citizen of Uganda to create and provide a clean and healthy environment” (The Republic of Uganda 1995: Article 17). These form the legal foundation for sanitation in Uganda. Decentralization and equality rights for gender, age, and disabilities expand it within the Constitution (cf. The Republic of Uganda 1995)
Furthermore, the Public Health Act gave household the responsibility to provide sanitation for themselves in 1964 and it is still the norm till today (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 14). National Environment Management Act and Local Government Act define the responsibilities for government institutions (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 17; The Government of the Republic of Uganda 1997).
However, Alabaster and Kruckova argue that the organizations were constructed too weak to have an impact at the time (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 17). In 2001, the “Memorandum of Understanding” sets the structural base by continuing decentralized competencies between national and local government, and the private sector for the sanitation sector. The 2003 Public Finance and Accountability Act implies that sanitation has to “follow sound financial management and accountability procedures” (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2013a: 6).
All in all, the chapter has presented a broad range of causal mechanism which influences the process towards the current situation. The thesis gave the historical contextualization an important role in setting the premise for the most recent and better documented period. The chapter guides the reader through the political institutions, national strategies and policies, the legal framework, the provision of sanitation, and the Uganda economy. It presents observations, analyzes them, develops criticism, and shows the improvements and initiatives to solve those challenges. In the next chapter, the thesis is going to take a look at the external financial resources spent on sanitation because they compose a significant proportion of the budget.
6.2 External Financial Resources for Sanitation
This chapter is going to analyze external financial resources and investment to increase access to sanitation in Uganda. It is divided into the sub-sections: The official development assistance (ODA), investments by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and finally, foreign direct investments (FDIs). The thesis is going to introduce them chronologically. During internal conflicts, the exposition lacks sufficient documentation of external resources. Furthermore, the specification of the water and sanitation sector or sanitation itself only began in 1995 (Anand 2013: 3). In general, the water and sanitation sector has been a rather small division of development aid. For example, water and sanitation received only US$8.77bn of US$133bn of the global ODA in 2011 (ibid.). Anand argues that the funding improved because actors prioritized water and sanitation for example with the MDGs in 2000 and 2002 and the affirmation as a human right in 2010 and 2015 (cf. Anand 2013).
Firstly, the ODA is the expenditure of financial resources in the form of bilateral by individual nations and multilateral investments by international organizations.24 These development subsidies are provided either as grants or loans. Grants are publicly known as donations which do not require a return. However, developing countries repay loans with interests. Nevertheless, these are mostly low-interest rates that not intent to make a profit. Besides, both forms may have conditions attached to them. For example, a bilateral donor makes a regional of functional restriction like annual progress reports by the government.
Anand’s Every Drop Counts: Assessing Aid for Water and Sanitation states that the global ODA for water and sanitation was about US$1.5bn25 in commitments26 in the 1970s (Anand 2013: 3). These bi- and multilateral assistance increased to US$3bn in the 1980s and US$4bn in the 1990s but stagnated at this level till 2003 (ibid.). Anand’s study begins in 1995 with US$3.7bn for water and sanitation. The ODA fluctuates between 3bn and 5bn till its lowest recording of approximately US$3bn in 2003. Afterwards, the resources sharply increased and surpassed US$5bn in 2005 (ibid.). The assistance reached its peak of almost US$9bn in 2009 (ibid.) The OECD registered commitments of US$8.05bn3 in 2009, US$7.91bn in 2011, and US$9.91bn in 2013 (cf. OECD 2015). Anand agrees with the OECD's estimations of decrease till the end of his study in 2011 (Anand 2013: 3). But, the OECD also states that the actual expenditure is significantly smaller with US$5.5bn, US$6.25bn, and US$6.27bn for 2009, 2011, and 2013 (cf. OECD 2015). Nonetheless, the resources for water and sanitation make a significant contribution to the development of the sectors. Therefore, the thesis is going to examine the investments into sanitation and compare them with the public budget.
In the beginning, the paper has to present the difficulties of documenting till the MWE's Sector Performance Report 2006. The World Bank27 and the Republic of Uganda do not allocate the sanitation sector from the ODA until 2002. The thesis presents total ODA of the previous 42 years to give a complete picture of the situation. The author hypothesizes that the ODA for sanitation is around 5% in Uganda for two reasons. Firstly, the world did not prioritize sanitation as an urgent problem. For example, the MDGs added the goal on sanitation in Johannesburg in 2002. Secondly, the first evidence of commitments for sanitation shows that they are at 4.2% of the total ODA (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2006; The World Bank 2017). The visuality and priority of sanitation only decrease in the international community when looking in the past. Therefore, the lack of separate data shall not exclude the documentation of official development assistance for the Republic of Uganda.
Globally, the OECD estimates that bi- and multilateral actors spent 54% for large, 23% for small systems and 23% for other water and sanitation activities from 2012 to 2013 (OECD 2015: 2). Furthermore, the OECD estimates that of the ODA for the WSS 2% are for basic sanitation, 11% for large systems, and 38% are combined projects (ibid.). Finally, the report shows that the commitments are divided into 28% grants, 42% concessional loans, and 30% non-concessional loans from 2012 to 2013 (ibid.). Specifically, the World Bank’s Open Data shows the „global disbursements” of development assistance in Uganda. It is the most comprehensive source for the progress of ODA from 1960 till today. The thesis compares their empirical data with other sources, discusses differences, and sets them into context with the budget for sanitation. The evidence begins with US$20.6mil5 in 1960 in ODA (cf. The World Bank 2017). The official development assistance slowly grew in the following years. Obote shaped its international image as a socialist who varies between tolerance and repression of opposition (Byrnes 1992: 35). The external resources foremost came from the so-called communist regions of the world. The military coup and dictatorship by Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979 ended most international relations with the outside. Only a few partners like Lybia funded activities in Uganda.
The end of the dictatorship put Uganda shortly back on the map for development assistance by other countries. Byrnes argues that the international community saw Obote as the president that could restore peace and unite Uganda as a nation after Idi Amin (Byrnes 1992: 35). The IMF started a program for Uganda in 1981 (ibid.). But as discussed earlier, the Uganda Bush-War began soon after Obote took office. Most of the ODA were canceled or decreased because of human rights violations (ibid.). In 1982, Obote called for US$1.7bn in international development assistance to finance infrastructure and other sectors because the national expenditure was driven by the civil war (Byrnes 1992: 142). However, his calls were not answered. But instead, all Western nations had suspended their disbursements by 1985 (ibid.).
The successful coup by Museveni made him the new president at the beginning of 1986. He made an appeal to international donors for US$160mil. to rebuild the war-torn country (Byrnes 1992: 142). The World Bank’s Open Data states that Uganda received US$191.56mil in 1986 (cf. The World Bank 2017). In the following year, the government planned to spend US$1.3bn till 1991 of which they have already funded US$550mil in the year of its announcement (Byrnes 1992: 142). Byrnes argues that this action and stabilization of Uganda gave external actors more confidence to invest in the development of Uganda (ibid.). In 1988, Byrnes registered that the ODA pledged US$377mil., and the World Bank loaned the government US$550mil for the development of
Uganda (Byrnes 1992: 143). Lastly, the Uganda: A Country Study states that the government calls for US$440mil. in ODA commitments (ibid.). The realization is not reported in this study because of its publication in 1990. The World Bank’s Open Data agrees with the Byrnes‘ study; it states that in the first years after the new presidency the official development assistance increased to US$663.1mil. In 1990 (cf. The World Bank 2017). It significantly surpasses Museveni’s request of external financial resources.
The ODA increased to US$853.28mil for Uganda in 2000 (cf. The World Bank 2017). The direct expenditure is rather poorly documented by international organizations and the national government till this point. The MWE begins to publicly disclose the resources of ODA in their Sector Performance Report 2006. The ministry begins its records with US$31.3mil in ODA commitments for sanitation activities in 2002 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2006). These increased to US$48.1mil in 2003 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2008). In 2004, the bi- and multilateral assistance further increased to US$1.222bn (cf. The World Bank 2017). In contrast, the SPR 2007 and 2008 state that the ODA for sanitation decreases to US$25.7mil in 2004 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2007, 2008). The MWE states that the decrease continues till 2011 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011). On the one hand, the MWE registered ODA of US$28.8mil, US$33.07mil, and US$23.5mil from 2005 to 2007 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2007, 2008). On the other hand, the World Bank’s Open Data states that Uganda receives more than US$1.5bn in ODA since 2006 (cf. The World Bank 2017). Therefore, the high increase in total ODA does have a significant impact on the sanitation sector in Uganda. In 2009, the ODA reached its peak with US$1.785bn for Uganda (ibid.). However, the SPR do not resonate to these findings for the sanitation sector. It decreases further and stays below US$15mil till 2011 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2009b, 2010, 2011).
The discussed financial instability of national resources is also applicable for the ODA for sanitation in Uganda. This paragraph shows the problematic inconsistency in financing sanitation. After this rather dry period, the ODA commitments jumps to US$35.6mil in 2012 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2012). But a year later, the commitments shrunk by about 7mil to US$28.4mil, and almost doubled to a new peak of US$53.5mil in 2014 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2013c, 2014). This movement repeats itself in the following two years. The ODA commitments sank to US$45.9mil in 2015 (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2015b). Also, the GLASS report 2014 gives an overview of the largest donors that contribute ODA to Uganda and which methods they prefer. The report separates between grants and loans for the water and sanitation sector. The European Union and Japan are the only actors who primarily give grants to Uganda; the former invests first in smaller systems and the latter in larger systems. Next to the biggest supporting agency the World Bank’s “International Development Association,” France and the “African Development Bank Group’s African Development Fund” make loans mostly for large systems available. Finally, Germany is also among the top loaners for Uganda, but the almost evenly distributed between smaller and larger systems. This selection shows that loans for water and sanitation are the biggest sum of most official development assistance in 2015 in urban areas. The sanitation sector needs more resources in every part of the country to give people access to improved sanitation facilities. But it shall be highlighted that the provision and service are significantly more successful in urban areas, but people have the greatest demand for sanitation in the countryside. The public subsidized household sanitation with about USh38bn as leverage (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2016b: 103). Looking back at the statements by the OCED, the Ministry of Water and Environment similarly registered the problem of the incoherence between commitments and actual expenditure. Since 2012, all SPR state that less than 50% of the commitments have been released by the actors of the ODA (cf. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment 2012, 2013c, 2014, 2015b, 2016b).
The second sector of this chapter is the analysis of investment by NGOs. In contrast to ODA, the investments of NGOs only are grants, and they do explicitly not want them back as part of its concept. In general, the donation by NGOs has increased from US$7bn in 2000 to US$30bn in 2011 for the WSS(cf. Anand 2013). Anand argues that the declaration of human rights, more transparency, and higher accountability of least developed countries are critical factors for the increasing amount of resources. In Uganda, the majority of NGOs have registered themselves in the “Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network” (UWASNET). The organization currently has more than 200 local and foreign members. Before 2000, the monitoring of NGO activities has largely been neglected by themselves. The reporting slowly increased from 41% in 2008 to 61% in 2011 (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2011: xi). The latest performance report by the UWASNET states that only 50-70% of their members participate in the voluntary reporting of their investments (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2016: 15). Hence, the organization cannot fully disclose the allocated investments of their members. In the FY2010/11, the UWASNET states that 21% of active members are international NGOs, and 18% are “faith-based organizations” (FBO) which may include external actors (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2011: xi). In general, the UWAS- NET members invested USh18.5bn in 2009/10, and Ush17.9bn in 2010/11 into the WSS (ibid.). However, only USh2.3bn and USh2.5bn were spent on sanitation (ibid.). Furthermore, the report states that 71% of their donations were devoted to the provision of school sanitation - USh1.778bn (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2011: xi-xii). The NGOs spent about USh326.39mil on the construction of household improved sanitation facilities and on improvements in 2010/11 (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2011: 8). Furthermore, the performance report states that USh107.15mil were spent on “traditional household latrines” - probably not improved (ibid.). They invested USh47.29mil in waste management and USh33.02mil to support people to construct facilities themselves (ibid.). The construction of ecosan28 facilities significantly increased in comparison to 2009/10 (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2011: 9). However, the NGOs invested less in ventilated pit latrines (VIP) and hand washing facilities in 2010/11 than the year before (ibid.) The performance report reasons that prior promotion of ecosan sanitation caused NGOs to spend more resources on the provision of access to sanitation itself (ibid.). Finally, the report recommends that the government should integrate the CLTS as its national strategy and invest in the private market of sanitation because the financial resources of NGOs are neither increasing nor sustainable (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2011: xv).
The following report registered a small increase in members and reporting data by the active one's (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2012: 14). In the FY2011/12, the total investments into the water and sanitation sector by the members of the UWASNET sharply increased to USh41.7bn (ibid.). The performance report foremost reasons this with their consistent effort to improve reporting in general and implement better data management for NGOs (ibid.). Next, to this political and self-promoting answer, the report states that large organizations began reporting, new and old members of the European Unions or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation increased their funds, and the northern conflict calmed down (ibid.). The sanitation sector received USh6.9bn which is about 16.5% (ibid.). Only USh1.11bn were allocated for the construction of household toilets (ibid.). These are divided into 482.6mil for traditional latrines, 474.2mil for VIPs, and 154.8mil for ecosan facilities and others (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2012: 32). This performance report intensively discusses the political ramifications for the sanitation sector. Firstly, the report states the policy of the government of Uganda to not give subsidies for household sanitation (ibid.). The thesis has illustrated the financial activities by the government which has come to a similar conclusion. But the government or the MWE have not stated this policy in any of their official publication. Furthermore, the financial activities have shown that this may have been a general strategy but the government does not follow through and has invested substantial amounts into the provision of household sanitation. The performance report highlights the difficulty to improve sanitation in cooperation with LGs (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2012: 17). On the one hand, the network recommends that the local leaders and governments shall be persuaded about the importance of coverage (ibid.). On the other, they have to prioritize sanitation, and they have to improve the social- economic and political situation in their areas for their communities (ibid.). The last argument is crucial if households have to provide sanitation for themselves. Also, the report repeats its recommendation that the government should improve and support the private market to increase competitiveness which is going to lead to more facilities and the intended behavioral change and sensitization (ibid.). These circumstances form some of the obstacles for the sanitation sector. Furthermore, the network argues that a cultural barrier hinders acceptance, poverty blocks investments, and service delivery is not sufficiently funded (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2012: 18). The network recognizes the discussed restrictions for subsidies, and therefore it suggests more resources for the promotion of sanitation, behavior change, and legal changes to increase household investments (ibid.).
The Performance Report for FY2015/16: NGOs in the Water and Sanitation Sub-Sector in Uganda is the latest publication by the network on the sanitation activities by NGOs. The UWASNET registered a decrease in reporting by active members to 56% of 200 (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2016: 12). Next, to a slight improvement in the total funds to USh44.4bn in 2015/16, the performance report shows that the investments into the sanitation sector have significantly improved since 2013/14 (Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network 2016: 22). The resources jumped from the low USh4.5bn in 2012/13 to USh11.4bn, USh12.39, and USh11.6bn in 2015/16 (ibid.). However, despite this significant amount, the resources for “household sanitation facility construction” have been only USh1.06bn in 2015/16 (ibid.). Moreover, the latest performance report has the shortest documentation of sanitation of the cited reports. It does not discuss current political or other barriers, success stories, and does not recommend any actions in their report. The network and other sources do not present a separation between internal and external NGO finances which the thesis emphatically supports from a postcolonial perspective. Any non-profit organization invests their donation for improving access to sanitation in Uganda. The distinction between external and internal NGOs may be relevant to calculate their efforts, but it also cultivates a hierarchy which judges and compares the two sides.
The thesis repeatedly cited the government-funded study Uganda Country Mapping: The Status of Implementation and Monitoring of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation by Alabaster and Kruckova which makes an extensive analysis of the water and sanitation situation in Uganda. The authors argue that NGOs have weak relations with local administrations because local leader only weakly supports their efforts (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 184). In contrast, Anand hypothesizes that NGOs could work against institutional improvements and acceptance, if national institutions are weak and insufficient (cf. Anand 2013). Alabaster and Kruckova do not verify this but criticize that NGOs unequally distribute their fund between the districts in Uganda (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 184). They reemphasize their recommendation for a new distribution system for funds which is based on the district's provision of information and progress reports in the water and sanitation sector (ibid.). They will set the necessary incentives to sufficiently monitor and invest on the local level.
Finally, the last group is the investment by private actors in the sanitation sector. These foreign direct investments“ are available since 1990. The World Bank’s Open Data does only collect them as a full sum. Neither international organization nor national publication discusses the specific investments into the water and sanitation sector in Uganda. Currently, the sanitation market is not sufficient, but the government and NGOs highlight its future importance for the provision of facilities. Legal restrictions and weak infrastructure are key obstacles for sufficient services. Furthermore, the banking system is rather restricted to give loans to entrepreneurs and citizens to pay for sanitation. Therefore, the improvement of international capital is broadly welcomed by the Uganda market. Birdsall and Lawrence argue that trade agreements are essential for investments because they invoke intellectual property rights, product standards, internal competition, and government procedures (Birdsall and Lawrence 1999: 128). The authors hypothesize similar to postcolonialism that the international system sets developing countries in a weak negotiating position. In 1999, Birdsall and Lawrence failed to mention sub-Sahara Africa’s position in the global system. Developing countries have to comply to prizes of the developed world which leads to low production standards and a weak frame to produce at the lowest prices. Lastly, the authors criticize the double standard of developed countries because, on the one hand, they push for lower standards and successful private cooperation and on the other, they want to enforce higher and equal standards similar to their own on others (Birdsall and Lawrence 1999: 141).
In Uganda, the documentation of FDI begins with US$5.9mil in 1990 (cf. The World Bank 2017). The investments slowly increase to US$210mil in 1998, US$202mil in 2003, and US$379.8mil in 2005 (ibid.). In the following period, they progressively rise but remain unstable, and constant growth is not guaranteed. There are similarities to official development assistance and funds by NGOs. In 2008, the investments reached US$728.8mil and peaked the following year at US$841.6mil (ibid.). However, the investments fell to US$543.9mil in 2010 (ibid.). Nevertheless, the FDI topped the previous peak the next year; they slowly grew and reached US$1.059bn in 2014 (ibid.). But the growth stops and the FDI shrank by 2mil in 2015 (ibid.).
In retrospect, the section of external resources is diverse, and the sanitation sector does not have a standalone representation in any of the three fields. In 2006, the Ministry of Water and Environment had begun to record the official development assistance by external agents as part of its budget. The external resources have been an important aspect of the Ugandan budget for investments in the sanitation sector. The investments by NGOs may be smaller but shall not be neglected by anyone. Their funds are highly valuable because they increase the sum of investments which do not receive an outcome. However, the physical provision of access to sanitation is a rather difficult field. The Ministry of Water and Environment does not allocate the projects to provide household access to sanitation. Henceforth, the thesis can only report the commitments by external agents. But the OECD’s study has shown that 38% of ODA is for combined water and sanitation systems, and 13% only for sanitation system at the global level. Moreover, the UWASNET has estimated that more than 20% are planned to finance sanitation since 2014. But the construction or provision of household sanitation has only been USh1.06bn of USh44.4bn in 2016 of NGO resources. Internal and external actors do not explain their investments in more detail which is an unsatisfying perspective for people defecating openly or with access to shared or unimproved facilities.
Nevertheless, there is strong support for external assistance to improve sanitation. The World Bank’s “Water and Sanitation Program” argues that “lenders and donors” have a considerable impact in providing access and making institutions accountable for their service delivery (Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region 2011: 43). The report has recommended that donors, who have a strong partnership with service providers, should promote sanitation to raise the demand which pushes for government actions (Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region 2011: 43-44). However, the financial instability and dependency have repeatedly criticized by the paper. The UWAS- NET has warned the government of Uganda to fall back on NGOs but instead build an independent budget. The OECD and World Bank have argued that donors may not follow their financial commitments. Currently, the government does not act according to these warnings and recommendations as reported in the fiscal year 2014/15: The budget for urban water and sanitation has been externally financed by two thirds (Alabaster and Kruckova 2015: 23). If fully realized, the government has to spend more resources on the water and sanitation sector.
The analysis presented a causal process that led Uganda to its current status of sanitation coverage. This final discussion shall present the strongest and verified causal mechanisms and the assessment of the monitoring process. Nonetheless, features that have no direct impact are valuable for their additional information and relevant references throughout the analysis. The chapter begins with causal factors which have either an impact on the outcome of interest or the causal process towards the current coverage of sanitation for households in Uganda. The first causal factor is British imperialism because it introduced modern systems and service to the country. They transferred knowledge about sanitation and hygiene to Uganda and decided to improve these sectors because of public health risks. The administration established hygienic norms to ensure a behavioral change in the Ugandan Protectorate. They gave so-called inspectors the mandate to enforce these standards by corporal punishment.
The second causal factor is the public health of Uganda. The impact of inadequate hygiene resulted in various deadly diseases since the beginning of the 20th century. The reference showed devastating mortality rates during British imperialism in Uganda. The local administration recognized the problem and realized that the existing single bucket system does not work. Therefore, the reaction is a smoking gun: The construction of sewerage in Kampala from the 1920s to 1937. In addition, the British Colonial Office subsidized the sewerage as a grant opposed to the loans for the construction of the water system; this highlights the critical need for sanitation. In the 1990s and 2000s, the public institutions reemphasized the impact of inadequate access to the public health. They answered with a more emphatic language and called for the prioritization of sanitation.
The next causal factor is the independence in 1962 which caused a change in power, gave Ugandans new liberties, and redistributed the wealth. It is significant because new actors are responsible for the sector. Additionally, the thesis argues that conflicts are another causal factor with an impact on the process towards the current coverage of sanitation in Uganda. Postcolonialism claims that the imperial rule triggers unstable political situation in former colonies. The largest armed fights are under Obote I from 1967 to 1971, the Ugandan-Tanzanian War between 1977 and 79, and the Bush War from 1981 to 1985. These have ended, or reduced investments in the sector, the destruction of sanitation facilities, and in general weakened the economy. Another causal factor is the institutional reform which has an impact every following action. For example, the 1996 Constitution and Local Governments Act of 1997 have significantly changed the mandate to provide sanitation for most Ugandans.
Lastly, the standards are a causal factor in the process. The thesis showed the differences between the JMP’s sanitation ladder and Ugandans types. The inconsistent terminologies and definitions cause miscommunication between actors, the MWE misquotes the JMP, and with higher numbers, Uganda is more likely to achieve their and international goals.
The second essential part of this discussion is the necessary configuration to provide sanitation which directly influences the outcome of interest. The causal process has shown that financing, individual factors, politics, maintenance, and the sanitation market are core elements. Firstly, the financial capital is one of the fundamental causal factors for the provision. It consists of many actors and has multiple implications. Most prominently, the national and local governments, non-Ugandan actors, and NGOs criticized the inadequate funds. Additionally, the private sector is weak and does not provide affordable services and facilities. Furthermore, poverty hinders individual users to invest in household sanitation. Two additional features have an impact on the part of the financial factor. First of all, authoritarian regimes allocated significantly less ODA which spiked with any system change. Secondly, the external resources increased because of the proclamation of sanitation as a human right and greater transparency by the government of Uganda.
Also, the thesis has shown that behavior is another causal factor. Firstly, the demand for sanitation has an impact on the provision and service. For another thing, the British administration forcefully implemented norms, and corporal punishment to enforce them. Today, the actors promote and campaign hygienic behavior. Lastly, the MWE and NGOs have described a cultural barrier against sanitation facilities.
Another significant causal factor are political intention and actions. On the one hand, institutions and governments must realize the right to sanitation. In Uganda, the national government, official development assistance, and nongovernmental organization are the largest actors and actively focus on having an impact on behavior change and constructing public toilets. The NWSC, LGs, and users are responsible for providing access for private households with substantially fewer funds available. The separation of competencies and the actor's actions show the priority of sanitation in Uganda. The priority increase regarding language and goals. But the coordination between actors needs improvement. On the other hand, politicians have a significant influence on the preference and provision of sanitation. Research shows that personal profits and demand drive politicians in the sanitation sector. Nevertheless, the local leaders and influential politicians are highly respected and could frame the debate and impact.
The thesis has briefly referred to human resources and infrastructure as causal factors because without those the provision of sanitation is next to impossible. However, they are at the fringe of published sources on sanitation. But nonetheless, professional employees and sustainable infrastructure may improve coverage and extend the lifespan of facilities due to regular maintenance.
Finally, the Ugandan economy is causal factor for the provision of sanitation. In general, a weak economy hinders investments into the sanitation sector because the government and people do not recognize sanitation as such a high priority. Furthermore, researchers, the MWE, and NGOs demand reforms and better regulations from the government because the sanitation-market is weak and unregulated. On the one hand, businesses are too inefficient, do not qualify for loans, and have a limited mandate. On the contrary, the majority of potential costumers is not able to afford their products or services. Next to financial barriers, institutional obstacles and inefficient communication currently hinder a profitable sanitation market. These causal factors are evidently paramount to service for households. But only their arrangement has an impact on the provision of sanitation for households.
Furthermore, the imperial behavior by the British and poverty of the population are the sufficient configuration of little coverage until the independence of Uganda. The exploitation and exclusion prevented any opportunity to gain access to facilities. Furthermore, Ugandans had not the capital to purchase or construct for themselves. Therefore, access to sanitation was a privilege of others in the Ugandan Protectorate.
Lastly, the thesis concludes with a causal confession: The Ugandan economy is the central contributor to the development of a country. The status, structure, and regulation have shown an unstable but growing Ugandan economy. It consists of poverty, not affordable services, weak regulations, and external influences that hinder a substantial development which will contribute to the provision of sanitation when achieved.
Finally, the monitoring of access is an essential action within the sector. It is the evaluation and follow-up of the government's investments and efforts which cause and influence the monitored outcome. The difference of definition for adequate sanitation may be an obstacle of efficient and healthy coverage. The Republic of Uganda does not apply the stricter ladder for their national monitoring system. The thesis has consequently illustrated in this chapter that the government of Uganda and the MWE use a broad range of terminology to describe their - not fully disclose - concept of access and provision of sanitation facilities for the public. Moreover, these agencies copy general terms without its definitions, invent new words, and misquote international monitoring data. These actions may not have a direct impact on the physical implementation of toilets. But the administration and employees do not have a clear guidance and frame for their investments, actions, and other sanitation activities. Furthermore, monitoring provides the citizens with vital information about the past and current status of a particular service. McLoughlin and Batley refer to multiple studies which argue that the lack of information about a public service hinders citizens to evaluate and formulate their interest about a particular service (Mcloughlin and Batley 2012). Therefore, the high percentage of access to sanitation by national standards has a different - probably negative - impact on the behavior and knowledge of Ugandans. The thesis found no documentation about the implications of the unsatisfying data by the JMP. The MWE includes a short reference to these differences, but as discussed earlier in this paper, the misuse of JMP terminology and misquotation of data contribute to a rather ill-informed public about the sanitation situation in Uganda.
All in all, the thesis has introduced the complex causal process of sanitation in Uganda. The implication of postcolonialism and British imperialism have shown the extensive effects it had on the country. The analysis of the political, legal, and economic dimension has presented significant causal factors. But at the heart of this thesis is the intense discussion on the financial investments for household sanitation, the provision and construction of facilities, and the monitoring process in Uganda. Foremost, instability and low prioritization have held a sustainable and healthy coverage of sanitation back.
The thesis has presented the case of Uganda by process-tracing within the frame of postcolonialism. The foundations build the outcome of interest which is the current coverage of sanitation. The paper begins with an introduction into the sanitation sector, the recent and essential sources. Both chapters highlight the critical impact of sanitation on human lives and the environment. The fourth defines postcolonialism as its foundational theory to critically reflect the British imperialism, and the authors own position. Additionally, the paper extensively introduces process-tracing for a single case in the fifth chapter to guide through its application in chapter six.
Firstly, the analysis begins with the historical contextualization and development of Uganda and its sanitation sector. The observation continues with the institutional structures, government policies, and provision of sanitation since the presidency of Museveni. The first section ends with two rather small summaries on the legal and economic development which give additional information to grasp the complexity of the sanitation sector. The next section radically changes the perspective from the inside to external causes. It presents the external financial resources from three distinctly different areas: official development assistance, nongovernmental organizations, and foreign direct investments. Within the analysis, the thesis has extrapolated causal factors, mechanisms, and other which explain the outcome of interest.
Most important is the necessary causal configuration which incorporates the verified causal factors that jointly impact the provision of sanitation. The conglomerate connects financing, individual behavior, demand, prioritization, political motivations, preservation, and the sanitation market as the confirmed causal factors that impact the provision of sanitation in Uganda. The lack of resources and monitoring weaken several observations and probable conclusions. The thesis appeals to the Government of Uganda to ensure consistent, stable and high-quality reporting for the sanitation sector. The causal factors and their current status and effect of the sanitation sector have extensively been documented in the thesis. The smoking gun and configurations present more than features but rather a collection of construction sites that designed the process toward the current coverage in Uganda. Nevertheless, improvements and completion are going to have a large impact on the quantity and quality of access to sanitation facilities.
All in all, the thesis has traced the complicated and under-reported process of sanitation in Uganda. Future research should compare these findings with other countries, dig deeper into the motivation of Local Governments in Uganda, and add the population growth as another field for research.
Achebe, Chinua (2009) "The Politics of Language". In Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, The PostColonial Studies Reader, 263-67.
Alabaster, Rose and Lenka Kruckova (2015) "Uganda Country Mapping: The Status of Implementation and Monitoring of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation". 2. Ed.
Anand, P. (2013) Every Drop Counts: Assessing Aid for Water and Sanitation. Working Paper, Vol. 2013/025. Helsinki, Finland: WIDER. http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-pa- pers/2013/en_GB/wp2013-025/.
Appadurai, Arjun (2009) "Comodities and the Politics of Value". In Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, 417-20.
Ashcroft, Bill (2009) "Language and Transformation". In Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, The PostColonial Studies Reader, 277-80.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin (2009a) Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. 2. ed., reprinted. Routledge Key Guides. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
, ed. (2009b) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. 2. ed., reprinted. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Baffes, John (2009) "The Cotton Sector Of Uganda". Africa Region Working Paper Series 123http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/WPS_123_Uganda_Cotton_Case_Study.pdf.
Batley, Richard and Claire Mcloughlin (2015) "The Politics of Public Services: A Service Characteristics Approach". World Development, Vol. 74: 275-85.
Beach, Derek and Rasmus Pedersen (2016) Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: The University of Michigan Press.
Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey Checkel, ed. (2015) Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic
Tool. 1. publ. Strategies for Social Inquiry. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Bhabha, Homi (1994) The Location of Culture. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Psychology Press. http://gbv.e- blib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=653022.
Bhutta, Zulfiqar and Samia Aleem (2013) A Review of External Assistance and Aid Effectiveness for Maternal and Child Health: Challenges and Opportunities. Working Paper, Vol.
2013/099. Helsinki, Finland: WIDER. http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-pa- pers/2013/en_GB/wp2013-099/.
Birdsall, Nancy and Robert Lawrence (1999) "Deep Integration and Trade Agreements: Good for Developing Countries?" In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, edited by Kaul, Inge, 128-51. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Blaney, David and Naeem Inayatullah (2010) "International Relations from Below" In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Reus-Smit, Christian and Duncan Snidal, 663-74. The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Accessed 04.07.16.
Blatter, Joachim and Markus Haverland (2012) Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-NResearch. Research Methods Series. Basingstoke, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1609/2012009550-d.html.
Bongartz, Petra, Naomi Vernon, and John Fox (2016) Sustainable Sanitation for All: Experiences, Challenges, and Innovations. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Bos, Robert (2016) "Manual on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation for Practitioners". Water Intelligence Online, Vol. 15 (0): 9781780407449-9781780407449.
Brady, Henry, ed. (2010) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2. ed. Lan- ham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action? docID=10421491.
Brown, Colin, Priscila Neves-Silva, and Leo Heller (2016) "The Human Right to Water and Sanitation: A New Perspective for Public Policies". Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, Vol. 21 (3): 661-70.
Bwire, Thomas, Oliver Morrissey, and Tim Lloyd (2013) A Timeseries Analysis of the Impact of Foreign Aid on Central Government's Fiscal Budget in Uganda. Working Paper, Vol. 2013/101. Helsinki, Finland: WIDER. http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-pa- pers/2013/en_GB/wp2013-101/.
Byrnes, Rita, ed. (1992) Uganda: A Country Study. Washington, D.C., USA: GPO for the Library of Congress.
Cavallo, Gonzalo (2012) "The Human Right to Water and Sanitation: From Political Commitments to Customary Rule?". Pace International Law Review Online Companion, Vol. 3 (5): 136- 200http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=pilronline. Accessed 30.08.16.
Cheng, June et al. (2012) "An Ecological Quantification of the Relationships Between Water, Sanitation and Infant, Child, and Maternal Mortality". Environmental Health, Vol. 11 (1): 4.
Chowdhry, Geeta, and Sheila Nair, ed. (2005) Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Collier, David (2011) "Understanding Process Tracing". Political Science and Politics, Vol. 44 (4): 823-30.
Dickinson, Katherine et al. (2015) "Nature’s Call: Impacts of Sanitation Choices in Orissa, India". Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 64 (1): 1-29.
Ekane, Nelson et al. (2014) "Multi-Level Sanitation Governance: Understanding and Overcoming the Challenges in the Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa". Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper (2014-4): 1-15.
Ekane, Nelson et al. (2016) "Comparative Assessment of Sanitation and Hygiene Policies and Institutional Frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania". Working Paper 5.
Elledge, Myles et al. (2002) "Guidelines for the Assessment of National Sanitation Policies: Strategic Report 2". Prepared for the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition, Bureau for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International Development, under EHP Project 26568/CESH.SANITA TION.POL TOOL.
Galan, Deise, Seung-Sup Kim, and Jay Graham (2013) "Exploring Changes in Open Defecation Prevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa Based on National Level Indices". BMC Public Health, Vol. 13: 527.
George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. BCSIA Studies in International Security. Cambridge, Mass., USA: MIT Press.
Glennan, Stuart (1996) "Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation". Erkenntnis, Vol. 44 (1): 49-71.
Grossman, Guy, Jan Pierskalla, and Emma Dean (2016) "Government Fragmentation and Public Goods Provision". Accessed 28.08.16.
Grovogui, Siba (2013) "Postcolonialism" In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. 3. ed., 247-65. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Heller, Leo (2015) Video 3 - on the HR to sanitation: Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitationhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByHC9Bdi- Y5WalZBOEVpZnFIUU0/view.
Holcombe, Randall (1997) "A Theory of the Theoy of Public Goods". Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 10 (1): 1-22.
Human Rights Council, 2009, Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. A/HRC/12/L.19. https://documents-dds-
Human Rights Council, 2010, Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Saniation. A/HRC/15/L.14. https://documents-dds-
Human Rights Council, 2016, The Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. A /HRC/RES/33/10.
Hutton, Guy and Laurence Haller (2004) "Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level".
Inayatullah, Naeem and David Blaney (2004) International Relations and the Problem of Difference. Global Horizons Series, Vol. v. 1. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. http://site.ebrary.- com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10093678.
Jasper, Christian, Thanh-Tam Le, and Jamie Bartram (2012) "Water and Sanitation in Schools: A Systematic Review of the Health and Educational Outcomes". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 9 (8): 2772-87.
Jones, Sam and Finn Tarp (2016) "Does Foreign Aid Harm Political Institutions?". Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 118: 266-81.
Katusiimeh, Mesharch (2015) "The Nonstate Provision of Health Services and Citizen Accountability in Uganda". Africa Today, Vol. 62 (1): 84-105https://muse.jhu.edu/artide/593641/pdf. Accessed 29.08.16.
Loftus, Alex, and Farhana Sultana, ed. (2012) The Right to Water: Politics, Governance and Social Struggles. 1st ed. Earthscan Water Text Series. New York, NY, USA; London, United Kingdom: Earthscan. http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=957557.
Lundestad, Geir (2014) East, West, North, South: International Relations since 1945. 7. ed., 1. publ. London, United Kingdom; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; New Delhi, India; Singapore, Singapore: SAGE.
Mbembe, Achille (2001) On the Postcolony. Studies on the History of Society and Culture, Vol. 41. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=65751.
McClintock, Anne (1994) "The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term 'Post-Colonialism'" In Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader, edited by Williams, Patrick and Laura Chrisman, 291-304. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
McGranahan, Gordon (2015) "Realizing the Right to Sanitation in Deprived Urban Communities: Meeting the Challenges of Collective Action, Coproduction, Affordability, and Housing Tenure". World Development, Vol. 68: 242-53.
Mcloughlin, Claire (2012) The Effects of Sector Characteristics on Accountability Relationships in Service Delivery. In collaboration with Batley, R. Working Paper, Vol. 350. London, United Kingdom. http ://www.odi .org.uk/resources/docs/7790.pdf.
Mcloughlin, Claire and Richard Batley (2012) "The Politics of What Works in Service Delivery: An Evidence-Based Review". Effective States and Inclusive Development Research Centre Working Paper, Vol. 06 http://eprints.bham.ac.uk/1256/1/Batley_esid_wp_2006.pdf.
Meier, Benjamin et al. (2014) "Translating the Human Right to Water and Sanitation into Public Policy Reform". Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 20 (4): 833-48.
Metha, Meera and Andreas Knapp (2004) "The Challenge of Financing Sanitation for Meeting The Millennium Development Goals".
Mitchell, Sandra (2002) "Contingent Generalizations: Lessons from Biology" In Akteure, Mechanis- men, Modelle: Zur Theoriefahigkeit Makro-Sozialer Analysen, edited by Mayntz, Renate, 179-195. Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Gesellschaftsforschung, Koln. Frankfurt/Main, Germany, New York, NY, USA: Campus.
Montgomery, M. and M. Elimelech (2007) "Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries: Including Health in the Equation". Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 41 (1): 17-24.
Mugisha, Silver and Sanford Berg (2008) "State-Owned Enterprises: NWSC's Turnaround in Uganda'". African Development Review, Vol. 20 (2): 305-34.
Murthy, Sharmila (2013) "The Human Right(s) to Water and Sanitation: History, Meaning, and the Controversy Over-Privatization'". Berkeley Journal International Law, Vol. 31 (1): 89-147.
National Planning Authority (2015) "Sector Development Planning Guidelines'". Press Release.
Nilsson, David (2006) "A Heritage of Unsustainability? Reviewing the Origin of the Large-Scale Water and Sanitation System in Kampala, Uganda'". Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 18 (2): 369-85.
(2011) "Pipes, Progress, and Poverty: Social and Technological Change in Urban Water Provision in Kenya and Uganda 1895-2010". Diss., Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1974) Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. London, United Kingdom.
Nyeko, Balam (1996) Uganda. Rev. World Bibliographical Series, Vol. 11. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clio Press.
Obani, Pedi and Joyeeta Gupta (2015) "The Evolution of the Right to Water and Sanitation: Differentiating the Implications'". Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, Vol. 24 (1): 27-39.
OECD (2015) "Aid to Water Supply andSanitation"https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentu- ploadMid%20to%20Water%20and%20Sanitation%20data.pdf. Accessed 15.04.16.
Phillips, Anne (1989) The Enigma of Colonialism: British Policy in West Africa. London, United Kingdom: Currey.
Pruss-Ustun, Annette et al. (2014) "Burden of Disease from Inadequate Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Low- and Middle-Income Settings: A Retrospective Analysis of Data from 145 Countries". Tropical Medicine & International Health, Vol. 19: 894-905.
Prynn, Peter and Hilary Sunman (2000) "Getting the Water to Where It's Needed and Getting the Tarriff Right". [Cited in Winpenny, James (2003). Financing Water for All. Report of the World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure, World Water Council, Third World Water Forum and Global Water Partnership. Marseille, France].
Pullan, Rachel et al. (2014) "Geographical Inequalities in Use of Improved Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation across Sub-Saharan Africa: Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data". PLOSMedicine, Vol. 11 (4): e1001626.
Roaf, Virgina, Inga Winkler, and Muriel Schiessl (2014) Realising the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation: A Handbook by the UN Special Rapporteur Catarina de Albuquerque. In collaboration with Blyberg, A., Cullet, P., Tatiana Fedotova et al. Portugal; Bangladore, India.
Said, Edward (1978) Orientalism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Salami, Adeleke et al. (2014) "Development Aid and Access to Water and Sanitation in Sub-Saharan AfricaWater International, Vol. 39 (3): 294-314.
Samuelson, Paul (1954) "The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure". The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36 (4): 387-89http://wwwjstor.org/stable/1925895? seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 28.08.16.
Schuen, Richard, Jonathan Parkinson, and Andreas Knapp (2009) "Study for Financial and Economic Analysis of Ecological Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa".
Scott, David (1999) Refashioning Futures: Criticism After Postcoloniality. Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400823062.
Seppala, Osmo (2002) "Effective Water and Sanitation Policy rReform Implementation: Needfor Systemic Approach and Stakeholder Participation". Water Policy, Vol. 4 (4): 367-88.
Spivak, Gayatri (1988) Can the Subaltern Speak? Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Macmillan.
Stasavage, David (1999) "The Role of Democracy in Uganda's Move to Universal Primary Education". The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 43 (1): 53-73.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2000) Economics of the Public Sector. 3. Ed. New York, NY, USA: Norton.
Summers, Carol (1991) "Intimate Colonialism: The Imperial Production of Reproduction in Uganda, 1907-1925". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 16 (4): 787-807.
The Central Intelligence Agency (2017) "The WorldFactbook".
The Government of the Republic of Uganda, 1997, The Local Government Acthttps://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/243.
The Government of the Republic of Uganda, 2010a, National Development Plan (2010/11 - 2014/15). NDP I. http://npa.ug/wp-content/themes/npatheme/documents/NDP2.pdf.
The Government of the Republic of Uganda, 2010b, Uganda Vision 2040. Vision 2040.
The Government of the Republic of Uganda, 2013, Addendum to the Fourth Performance Contract (PCIV) for the Period 1st July 2012-30th June 2014 Between The Goverment of the Republic of Uganda and National Water and Sewerage Cooperation. PC IV.
The Government of the Republic of Uganda, 2015, Second National Development Plan 2015/16 - 2019/20. NDP II. http://npa.ug/wp-content/uploads/NDPII-Final.pdf.
The Republic of Uganda, 1995, The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Act 13/2000. 1http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ug/ug023en.pdf.
The World Bank (2017) "World Bank Open Data: Free and Open Access to Global Development Data".
The World Bank Group (2017) " World Bank Open Data: Free and Open Access to Global Development Data".
The World Bank Water Sanitation Program (2006) " Getting Africa on Track to Meet the MDGs on Water and Sanitation: A Status Overview of Sixteen African Coun- tries"https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/flles/publications/319200725615_312007101903_M DGs_All_final3_high.pdf.
Thomson, Mike (2004) "Strengthening Budget Mechanisms for Sanitation in Uganda: Executive Summary".
Travers, Anyess et al. (2013) "The Added Value of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions to Mass Drug Administration for Reducing the Prevalence of Trachoma: A Systematic Review Examining". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 2013: 682093.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2016) "The National Population and Housing Census 2014: Main Report".
Uganda Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2000) "Uganda's Poverty Eradication Action Plan: Summary and Main Objec-
(2005) "Poverty Eradication Action Plan (2004/5-2007/8)"http://siteresources.world- bank.org/INTPRS1/Resources/UgandaPEAP%282005-Apr%29.pdf.
Uganda Ministry of Health (2015) "Health Sector Development Plan 2015/16 - 2019/20". Press Release.
Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment (2006) " Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2006"www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_down- load&gid=140&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2007) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2007"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=141&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2008) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2008"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=142&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2009a, Ministerial Policy Statement for Water and Environment FY2009/10. MPS: Water and Environment 2009.
(2009b) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2009"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=144&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2010) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2010"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=149&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2011) " Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2011 "www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=147&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2012) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2012"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=244&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2013 a) "District Implementation Manual: Revised'.
Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2013b, Ministerial Policy Statement: Water and Environment Sector. MPS: Water and Environment.
(2013c) " Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2013"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=623&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
(2014) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2014"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=735&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2015a, Ministerial Policy Statement: Water and Environment Sector. MPS: Water and Environment 2015.
(2015b) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2015"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=826&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2016a, Ministerial Policy Statement: Water and Environment Sector. MPS: Water and Environment 2016.
(2016b) "Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2016"www.mwe.- go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=927&Itemid=223. Accessed 26.10.16. Press Release.
Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2017, Ministerial Policy Statement: Water and Environment Sector. MPS: Water and Environment 2017.
Uganda Water & Sanitation NGO Network (2011) "NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector: Performance Report for FY 2010/11". Press Release.
(2012) "NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector: Performance Report for FY 2011/12". Press Release.
(2016) "Performance Report for FY 2015/16: NGOs in the Water and Sanitation Sub-Sector in Uganda". Press Release.
UN Committee for Development Policy (2017) "List of Least Developed Countries (as of June 2017)".
UN Department of Public Information (2013) "Millenium Development Goals and Beyond 2015: Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability". We Can End Poverty.
United Nations General Assembly, 1976, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. ICESCR. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cescr.pdf.
United Nations General Assembly, 2010, The Human Right to Water and Sanitation. A/RES/64/292.
United Nations General Assembly, 2015, The Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. A /C.3/70/L.55/Rev.1.
UN-Water (2016) "Metadata on Suggested Indicators for Global Monitoring of SDG 6 on Water and Sanitation: Compiled by UN-Water for the Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs)". Accessed 13.03.17.
UN-Water and WHO (2015) "Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities: GLASS Report 2014"http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204276/1/WHO_FWC_WSH_15.05_eng.pdf. Accessed 11.04.16.
(2016) "TrackFin Initative: Tracking Financing to Sanitation, Hygiene and Drinking-Water at the National Level".
van de Lande, Laura (2015) "Eliminating Discrimination and Inequalities in Access to Water and Sanitation".
Water and Sanitation Program (2011) "The Political Economy of Sanitation: How Can We Increase Investment and Improve Service for the Poor? Operational Experiences From Case Studies in Brazil, India, and Senegal".
Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region (2011) "Water Supply and Sanitation in Uganda: Turning Financing into Services for 2015 and Beyond". An AMCOW Country Status Overview. Country Status Overviews (CSO2)https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/CSO-uganda.pdf.
WHO (2014) "Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities: Special Report for the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA), High-Level Meeting (HLM) 2014"http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/glaas/2013/14063_SWA_GLAAS_High- lights.pdf. Accessed 11.04.16.
WHO and UN-Water (2015a) "GLAAS 2013/14 Country Survey: Raw Output of Written Comments Provided by GLAAS Respondent Countries - SECTION A on Governance".
(2015b) "GLAAS 2013/14 Country Survey: Raw Output of Written Comments Provided by GLAAS Respondent Countries - SECTION C on Human Resources".
(2015c) "GLAAS 2013/14 Country Survey: Raw Output of Written Comments Provided by GLAAS Respondent Countries - SECTION D on Finance'.
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (2004) Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target: A Mid-Term Assessment of Progress. Geneva, Switzerland; New York, NY, USA: World Health Organization; UNICEF.
(2010) Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water: 2010 Update. Geneva, Switzerland:
World Health Organization. http://www.unicef.org/media/files/JMP-2010Final.pdf.
(2012) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update. New York, NY, USA: UNICEF.
(2013) "Ending Preventable Child Deaths from Pneumonia and Diarrhoea by 2025". The Integrated Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pneumonia and Diarrhoea (GAPPD).
(2015) "Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and MDG Assessment".
Yates, Travis et al. (2015) "The Impact of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions on the Health and Well-Being of People Living With HIV: A Systematic Review". Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol. 68 (3): 318-30.
Young, John and John Kent (2013) International Relations Since 1945: A Global History. 2. ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Young, Robert (2001) Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom; Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx? p=4451917.
(2015) Empire, Colony, Postcolony. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
1 The term combines the biological process of urination and the excretion of waste.
2 The term “Uganda” refers to the “Republic of Uganda”, and prior systems on this territory for example the “Ugandan Protectorate”.
3 The Joint Monitoring Programme a the global monitoring collaboration from UNICEF and the WHO
4 For more details see the annual reports of the Joint Monitoring Programme.
5 For more details on the criteria to identify Least-Developed Countries visit: http://unohrlls.org/about-ldcs/criteria- for-ldcs/
6 The NWSC is a semi-autonomous cooperation which receives government subsidies and operates as documented in its “Performance Contracts”.
7 From 2010 to 2015, the GA and HRC recognized a combined right of water and sanitation which sparked the debate about its reading cf. United Nations General Assembly (2010); Human Rights Council (2010).
8 The term “postcolonialism” is differently spelled by various authors and institutes. Any citation of a different spelling is only to uphold acadamic standards but they shall all refer to the theory of this paper. For further information about the debate see: Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin (2009b, 2009a), (McClintock 1994
9 Further explanations of small-n studies see Beach and Pedersen (2016); Bennett and Checkel (2015); Blatter and Haverland (2012); (Collier 2011; George and Bennett (2005)
10 The plan does not explain the term “communities”. It is a wider term that does not only stand for Local Governments because they are intensively described in the PEAP.
11 Community Led Total Sanitation is an approach that aims for sustainable and holistic coverage of sanitation. For more information see: Bongartz, Vernon, and Fox (2016).
12 The World Bank refers to the Joint Moinitoring Programs Progress Reports from 2000-2010 and additional information for a regressive estimation on the percentage with access to ISF and those defecating openly according to the sanitation ladder.
13 The different standards by the Joint Monitoring Programme and the Ministry of Water and Environment have been discussed earlier in the thesis. Due to inconsistent terminology by the MWE, the thesis refers to “improved sanitation (facilities)”, “household sanitation”, and any other form of “sanitation” as household sanitation, if the ration is consistently used in the sources.
14 “FY” refers to “fiscal year” in Uganda because the public budgets are planned form 1st July to 30th June. Therefore, the thesis has to combine annual reports with fiscal years which are indicated by a forwardslash The Central Intelligence Agency (2017).
15 Safely managed sanitation process is another new phrase by the Government of Uganda which has no reference or is not part of any other government documentation. The thesis reemphasizes its earlier statement that unprecedented forms of sanitation are at least confusing for readers but also could lead to adverse consequence for actors.
16 Any cited currency is not changed at any account. Hence, the amount reflects the value during publication. The Uganda Shilling fluctuates for example in June 2008 USh1 equals about US$0.00064 and in August 2017 about US$0.00027 (http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=UGX&to=USD&view=10Y; Accessed 25.08.2017).
17 A neologism of this source which most likely refers to waste treatment plans.
18 In the discussed period, the Ministry of Health was still mandated for the provision of sanitation.
19 For the development of sanitation as a human right see: (Bos 2016; Brown, Neves-Silva, and Leo Heller 2016; Cav- allo 2012; Meier et al. 2014; Murthy 2013); Roaf, Winkler, and Schiessl (2014)
20 For the independence and relation to other human rights see Human Rights Council (2016); (Murthy 2013; Roaf, Winkler, and Schiessl (2014); United Nations General Assembly (2015)
21 Non-discrimination is the equality in access and lack of prohibition from realizing ones right to sanitation cf. Roaf, Winkler, and Schiessl (2014)
22 Available information mean that people have the opportunity to gain access to necessary knowledge on their rights and the actions of government.
23 Roaf et al. define accountability by government as the opportunity to link actions to actors in the sanitation sector.
24 The Republic of Uganda and its Ministry of Water and Environment refer to the actors in the context of official development assistance as „donors“ or „international donors“, and „development partners“.
25 The quotation of funds refers to constant prizes as used in the cited works.
26 Commitments are proposed investments by ODA. Disbursements are the actual expenditure allocated after the period or fiscal year has ended.
27 The Open Data webpage states that it constructs its data from international organization and institutions such as the OECD‘s Query Wizard for International Development Statistics.
28 The document does not further explain these facilities. The term stand for ecological sanitation which is a reference to compost toilets and other environmental friendly sanitation facilities.
- Quote paper
- Maximilian Christian Kühn (Author), 2017, Process-Tracing the Provision of Sanitation in Uganda, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/453238