Decentralized Urban Planning Challenges in a City of a Developing Country:The Case of Kampala Capital City, Uganda

Decentralized mode of governance has been adopted by many developing countries since mid-1980s, with the objective of bringing decision making closer to the communities, increase public participation and improve the quality in management. This was lauded as a move away from top-down model of governance to that addressing the local needs at grassroots level. This mode has been fast tracked in Uganda since the late 1980s with urban and district authorities. Among the Urban authorities, Kampala City Council, then a Local Government, took the lead in decentralizing urban planning and land management as by the Local Government Act. Cap 243. For instance a change of administrative set up under the Kampala Capital City Authority Act.2011 revamped service delivery including urban planning. However there was de facto recentralization of urban planning to the centre. This move disenchanfrised the population at the grassroots and gone against the spirit of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda on decentralization. Hence this paper examines the constraints that face decentralization and emphasizes that its role cannot be reversed. Consequently, strategies that can be applied to streamline the process of decentralization and make it functional.

decentralized to the Divisions. The Divisions took charge of the defined 'forward and development control planning' and local land management. The centre remained with handling policy issues, monitoring planning performance and reviewing operations in the Divisions. This was in line with the set-up of institutional and administrative objectives which were: i) To strengthen the institutional capacity by supporting Uganda's policy of decentralized local urban management ii) To identify planning and action programmes which can be implemented and monitored by Kampala City Council working in collaboration with appropriate local councils.; iii) To ensure that planning proposals and policies address the full range of socio-economic groups including lower income groups resident in Kampala (Nostrand, 1994). These objectives were aligned to the administrative objectives that included: i) To provide a decentralized programme of planning administration that could encourage field involvement of communities; ii) To reinforce the Division-Parish structure and explore its adoption as an implementation framework; iii) To encourage on going public participation in planning.

d) Kampala Capital City Act 2011
The enactment of Kampala Capital City Act 2011 changed the status of Kampala as an administrative District and made it to be part of the urban local government system. The city name changed to 'Kampala Capital City Authority' and the administration was placed under direct control of the Central Government. However, in spite of the stated changes, the organisation has maintained the administrative structure and functions of a local government that includes a decentralized urban planning and land management set up by Section 20 Lower Urban Councils of the Kampala Capital City Act. 2011. The hierarchical planning structure is maintained as indicated in Fig 1,  Under the same Act, the Divisions are given responsibility to prepare Neighbourhood Structure Plans, local land management, and resolving with preparation of neighbourhood Structure Plans, local land management and resolve local land issues. This is in conformity with the provisions of the Uganda Local Government Act Cap not equipped with planning tools, drawing equipments, computers and requisite software; paper for drafting, maps, tracing and printing. They also don't have attached vehicles for routine and field work exercises. Thus, the decentralized planning units have to depend on the centre for logistical support which Lewis, (2014) views as 'fostering dependency' in terms of administrative centralization. iii) Top management autocracy: not let go syndrome. Research study findings (2014) on 'Development control and Plan implementation' by Barugahare, J.B, reveal that since 2012, the headquarters at City Hall has taken over the majority of the Divisions' planning functions. This is not the official policy of Kampala Capital City Authority but a top management decision which is outside the provisions of Kampala Capital City Act. 2011. Consequently, those devolved planning functions to the Divisions such as endorsing development applications for land, land sub-division processing and consent, change of user and preparation of local area physical plans are now recentralised to the headquarters. Even the issues of land disputes and inquiries on planning and development are also directed to the headquarters.
The challenge of planning autocracy is also associated with forces that support centralized urban planning including top bureaucrats who still remain accountable to the centre. In the initial Kampala City Council, the technocrats within the now Directorate of Physical Planning were reluctant to decentralize urban planning and land management because they would lose the planning control over the city and thus 'not want to let go syndrome'. In the same manner the technocrats at City Hall did not seem willing to move to the Divisions where facilities to execute planning functions were non-existent. This was reinforced by a mind-set and perception that the centralized urban planning system was stronger and effectively regulated and thus more workable.
This attitude frustrated the decentralization process to execute the provisions of the '1994-2004 Kampala Structure Plan'. To date this mind-set challenge still prevails although more pronounced at the top KCCA backed by the technocrats at the headquarters. They have consequently remained at the headquarters. The majority of the planning functions which should have been carried out by the Divisions.
This behaviour is impacting negatively on the implementation of the provisions of the current'Kampala Capital City Physical Development Plan 2012'. The physical planners at the Divisions have to wait for planning directives from the headquarters to implement the provisions of the current plan. Unfortunately however, during the time of waiting unauthorized development continue taking place outside the planning framework.
Rondinelli et al, (1984) point out that, "centralization has tended to be the ideal and the norm because of the former colonial system inherited. Central agencies are unwilling to give up authority, and staffs are still loyal to the centre". This challenge is posing a threat to decentralization efforts of urban planning within Kampala Capital City. As Fisher (2007) points out, this is a case where there is decentralized administrative function without devolving the power to make meaningful decisions. The stake holders still face the challenge of not being able to set their own objectives other than implementing what is directed to them from the centre. Similarly, the usurping of the decentralization functions by top management and technocrats at the headquarters is a denial of local participation in decision making and the democratic right instituted under the constitution. Nabukeera, M. et al (2015), agree that by acting in this manner the central Government is pocketing peoples' right given to them by the Constitution of Uganda. This increases bueurocracy of top-down decision making and and causes delays in getting planning actions. Research carried out indicates that it takes over 12 months to get response on planning inquiries as indicated in Table 2.  (2013). vii) Ignoring local levels challenge. There is a tendency of different interests to ignore by pass the lower levels and seek advice from higher levels. This is quite common with the private sectors who want their development applications or approvals handled expeditiously n when even the required information for decision making has not been obtained. Quite often such developers want to evade planning requirements and want to use the higher levels to give directives to lower local councils to grant themconsent or change the plans in their favour. Research findings (Table 3) reveal a category of those who influence change of plans and those who pay money rank highest.  However, UNCHS-(Habitat) points out that decentralization in some countries, including Uganda, are a sign of dis engagement that means commitment to implement the former. At the same time it is pointed out that if there is no devolution of resources as required decentralization will not be effective. For Kampala City, there has not been significant transfer of concomitant funds overtime to enable the Divisions and Lower councils perform the specified urban planning functions. v) Political Chauvinism over urban planning considerations. Administrative decentralization through devolution has been misinterpreted by local politicians as having authority to direct operation of services. Consequently there has been a tendency to direct the technical officers including urban planners to sanction developments that don't even conform to the provisions of the physical plans. Such moves tend to favour the people's interests in the politicians' constituencies. The Planners' professional decisions may threaten the local politicians' desires to please the local communities' interests which in turn puts at stake the local politicians' votes. Consequently the politicians' decisions tend to prevail over the technocrats' advice. vi. Poor Communication and planning gaps. Inadequate communication flow on planning and development intentions continue to pose serious challenges on implementation of the decentralization process. It is further exacerbated by lack of collaborated planning approach between the controlling authority, Kampala Capital City headquarters, the Divisions, and the stakeholders. The implications are that the local leadership and communities cannot effectively and collectively participate in planning decision making on matters affecting their local areas which makes them feel that they do not own the resultant plans. Research evidence indicates that 68.4% of the interviewees (Table 4 ) never get communication on spatial plans for areas where they live or operate businesses because the Planners rarely consult the local communities on how they want to see their areas developed. This is often tantamount to the plans being rejected as have little or no community contribution and besides the communities would have already undertaken their developments.  (2014) vii. Corruption with decentralized urban planning. The decentralized system is accused of promoting corruption through collaboration between technocrats and politicians at local level of planning. This often involves exchange of money as evidenced by research findings in Table 5. Decentralization being a new concept has had such flaws that water down the essence of providing services efficiently and expeditiously at the lower levels. This does not negate the view that there is no corruption under a centralized system, but the findings indicate what was found out at the time. Source: Author's Field data,( 2013). Corruption is evidenced by high percentage of respondents who pay money to get away with punitive actions that would be taken on evasion of the planning requirements. No reviews have ever been undertaken to identify the weaknesses and put the system on an efficient operational course. This corruption challenge is now being advocated by Kampala Capital City management for recentralising urban planning to bring it under effective control.

Recommendations
The following suggestions are presented to improve the decentralization processes of urban planning. a). Decentralized urban planning needs to be effectively aligned to administrative, political and financial decentralization if it has to work b) Decentralization should be viewed as a basis for democratic human rights where communities must participate in planning decision making that affect them. This means involvement at all tiers of planning stages that include broad physical plans; Detailed Plans and Area action Plans. c) Urban Plans at all levels need to be prepared and made relevant to stakeholders needs. A cardinal issue of focus should be the local conditions and particularly the informal sector in housing and business activities. d) The Parish and Local Council I's need to be brought within the legal Urban Planning framework. These tiers should be part of the statutory urban planning structures with legal mandate to check and ascertain the physical developments going on. e)Understandable and less complex planning language should be used in plans preparation processes to enable locals understand and participate, to minimize technocratic rationalism where planning language is only understood by the Planners and becomes a dogma to the rest of the communities.. f) Decentralized funding at the lower levels should be a requirement for this mode of governance to take into account of the decentralized urban planning as one of the key functions to be funded. The funds need to be budgeted for preparation of a range effective urban planning operations. Continued reliance on the Headquarters for regular releases of funds not only delays operations but also the spirit of decentralization. Along with this is equipping the planning units with the necessary planning tools as drawing equipments, drawing tables, tape measures, computers with requisite planning and design software and field vehicles. g) Kampala Capital City Authority should recruit more Planners and allied staff, assistant land officers, surveyors, and Geographic information experts for the Divisions. This will give opportunity to the Divisions and the lower levels not only to prepare the local plans but also to handle other planning and local land management issues. h) There is an urgent need to train Local Leaders, communities, land owners and other interest groups at Division, Parish and Local Council one levels and to regularly sensitized on less sophisticated technical planning issues and monitoring of physical sectoral developments. This is a task that has to be undertaken by Kampala Capital City Authority and the Division Councils. This strategy enhances awareness and participation by various stakeholders in urban planning at the lowers levels. Similarly, it is pertinent that the enforcement and Local Council I Officials be trained to handle defined simple planning and land management issues which can later be certified by the Division Urban Planners. This in itself hastens planning action and may minimize illegalities. i) Decentralized urban planning in Kampala Capital City still requires political and administrative will at the centre and Division Urban Council levels. Both parties need to be committed to the vision and objectives of decentralization to convince the rest of the stakeholders to join the decentralization drive. Rahman and Islam, (2013), point out that lack of political will and sometimes arrogance of the educated elite is a threat for practice of decentralization in land use planning' j). Decentralization needs to be linked to the areas'local economic development so that democratisation of the decision making and resources use are focused on improving the inhabitants' propelled by decentralization. k). Spell out the mandates of different actors, vertically and horizontally since there are different actors involved in decentralized urban planning and land management processes. This is intended to eliminate areas of overlap but also minimize areas of contradiction arising.

Conclusion
From the foregone analysis it is clear that the urban planning decentralization taking place is largely in the forms of 'delegation' and 'deconcentration'. These two forms have been affected at Division Urban Councils level and have not filtered to Lower council levels. Therefore decentralized urban planning at grassroots is still minimal and ineffective. It is farther noted that decentralized urban planning is frustrated by other factors that include: un readiness of Division urban Council to take on new responsibilities; top management of Kampala Capital City reluctance to let go the planning powers; lack of planning manpower and logistic support; very inadequate funding for planning; minimal political support on decentralization; corruption of the system being new; the big powers overlooking the local centres and running to headquarters to give directives and lack of communication to communities and collaborative planning approach. These are challenges that Kampala Capital City has to exigently focus on if the drive for decentralized urban planning is to be effectively operationalized.
Decentralization is a key strategy of getting urban plans implemented as long as the stakeholders are involved in the urban planning processes and that this enhances their livelihoods. Similarly the form of decentralization to be pursued should be 'devolution' that gives power of decision making to the communities.