MDGs-based Planning in Africa:Lesson, Experiences and Challenges

Economic Commission for Africa

MDGs/LDCs Section, EDND Case Studies

A Case Study of NigeriaEric Eboh

Prepared for the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

Economic Commission for Africa

EDND/MDGs/LDCs/CS/MP/2010/02

EDND Case StudiesMDGs-LDCs Section

A Case Study of Nigeria

Eric Eboh

Prepared for the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). Report made possible by the generous support of ECA joint pool partners. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Na-tions, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa or any of its officers.

ii

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms v

Acknowledgement vii

Executive Summary viii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Context: MDGs and the 2005 World Summit 1 1.2 Purpose and Objectives 2 1.3 Key Issues Addressed by the Study 2 1.4 Methodology 3 1.5 Organization of the Report 4

2. Economic Context of the MDGs Challenge in Nigeria 4

3. Progress Towards the MDGs 2015 Targets 6

4. MDGs-Based Plan/Strategy: From Concept and Practice 7

5. Alignment of Nigeria’s Visioning/Planning to MDGs-Based Planning 8

5.1 The Planning Context Vis-À-Vis MDGs 8 5.2 Philosophy and Succession of National Development Planning 8 5.3 Alignment of NEEDS-1 to MDGs: The Status of Background Studies, NEEDS Assessment/Costing And Participatory Processes 11 5.4 MDGs-Contents of NEEDS-1, NEEDS-2 & Vision 2020 12 5.5 Macroeconomic Frameworks, Fiscal Policy and MDGs-Based Planning: The Cases of NEEDS-1 and NEEDS-2 14

6. Impact of Federal Setting and Subnational Authorities on MDGs and MDGs-Based Planning: Insights from Nigeria’s Experience 18

6.1 Concept vs Practice of “National Plan” in a Federal Setting 18 6.2 Policy Decentralisation and MDGs: The Nigeria Experience 19 6.3 Subnational Jurisdictions and MDGs Spending 20

iii

6.4 Localisation of MDGs: The Role of Subnational Jurisdictions sing the SEEDS-LEEDS Example 22

7. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting of MDGs 24

7.1 MDGs Monitoring and Evaluation is Crucial 24 7.2 The National Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) System 25 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements Under NEEDS 1 & 2 25 7.4 The Challenge of Adequate, Reliable and Timely Statistics 28 7.5 Preparation and Dissemination of MDGs Progress Reports 29 7.6 Subnational Dimensions of MDGs Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting 30

8.0 Conclusions and Policy Implications 32

8.1 NEEDS-1 & NEEDS -2 Attempted MDGs-Based Planning 32 8.2 The ‘Open’ Initiative was Critical Turning Point for MDGs-Based Planning 33 8.3 Coordination, Monitoring and Reporting Systems Need Overhaul 43 33 8.4 Capacity Gaps and Policy Uncertainties Remain Critical 34 8.5 Capacity Weaknesses are Acute at the Subnational Level 35

Bibliography 36

Appendix I: Questionnaire 38

Appendix II: List of Persons Interviewed 47

Appendix III: Revenue and Expenditure Shares of Federal, State andLocal Governments, 2003-2007 50

Appendix IV: State-level MDGs Status and Related Indicators 51

Appendix V: State-level MDGs Indicators 53

Appendix VI: Terms of Reference for Country Studies on MDGs-basedPlanning in SSA 55

List of Tables

Table 1: Selected Macroeconomic Indicators: NEEDS-1 Targets and Achievements, 2004-2008 5Table 2: Actual Spending of Debt Relief Gains (N billion) 2006-2008 16

iv

Table 3: Total Project Value of MDGs Conditional Grants Scheme Initiatives 2007-2009 17Table 4: Relative Size of Education and Health Expenditures of Federal and State Governments 21Table 5: MDGs-Related Indicators Across Nigeria’s Six Geopolitical Regions 23Table 6: Respondents’ Rating of Constraints to MDGs-Consistent Planning 33

�

List of Acronyms

BMEU Budget Monitoring and EvaluationBOF BudgetOfficeof theFederationCBN Central Bank of NigeriaCES Consumer Expenditure SurveysCWIQ Core Welfare Indicator QuestionnaireECA Economic Commission for AfricaFDI Foreign Direct InvestmentFMAWR Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water ResourcesFRN Federal Republic of NigeriaGDP Gross Domestic ProductHIPCs Highly Indebted Poor CountriesICT Information Communication Technology IDPs International Development PartnersIMC Independent Monitoring CommitteeI-PRSPs Interim Paper on Poverty Reduction Strategy PapersJPB Joint Planning BoardKPI Key Performance IndicatorsLDCs Least Developed CountriesLEEDS Local Economic Empowerment and Development StrategyM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMDAs Ministries, Departments and AgenciesMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMICS Multiple Indicator Cluster SurveyMoE Ministry of EducationMoF Ministry of FinanceMoH Ministry of HealthMoWA Ministry of Women AffairsMTEF Medium Term Expenditure FrameworkMTSS Medium Term Sector StrategyNBS National Bureau of StatisticsNCDP National Council on Development PlanningNDP National Development PlanNEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development StrategyNLSS Nigerian Living Standard SurveyNPC National Planning CommissionODA OfficialDevelopmentAssistanceOPEN Overview of Public Expenditure on NEEDSOPFR Oil Price Fiscal RuleOSSAP Officeof theSeniorSpecialAssistanttothePresidentPPP Purchasing Power ParityPRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy PapersRMAFC Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal CommissionRPED Regional Programme for Enterprise Development

vi

SAP Structural Adjustment ProgrammeSEEDS State Economic Empowerment and Development StrategySSA Sub Saharan African TAC Technical Advisory CommitteeTOR Terms of ReferenceTT TaskTeamUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammesVPF Virtual Poverty Fund

�ii

Acknowledgement

This study was executed with support and collaboration from many institutions and agen-cies including international bodies, agencies of the Nigerian Federal and State Govern-ments, non-governmental organizations as well as groups and individuals. The role of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) in initiating and facilitating the Nigeria study as part of the Africa multi-country learning on MDGs-based planning is very commendable. In this regard, we acknowledge with gratitude the general facilitation, reviews and feedbacks given by UNECA Officers, including Dr. Kasirm Nwuke, Chief,MDGs and Poverty Analysis and Monitoring Section, UNECA and Dr. Oumar Diallo, Eco-nomicAffairsOfficer,MDGs/PovertyAnalysisandMonitoringSection.Wearealsograte-ful to Cisse Z. Marcelin of the United Nations Development Programme in Nigeria for fa-cilitating contactswith government institutions andofficials for interviews anddiscussions.

Wewouldliketoexpressgratitudetoofficialsof theNationalPlanningCommission,includ-ing Prof. Sylvester Monye, Mrs. C. M. Ikpechukwu and Mr. Kenneth Kwujeli for their indi-vidual and collective assistance in scheduling interviews and discussions with other institu-tions and agencies of the Federal Government in Abuja. We are very appreciative of the contributions of theOffice of the Senior Special Assistant to the President onMDGs inproviding relevant information and literature for the study. Special mention is due to Haji-ya Amina Ibrahim, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on MDGs, for giving the right atmosphere for interactions and discussions with MDGs staff. In particular, we note with thanks the vital information given by the MDGs costing team led by Mr. Barth Feese. OurthanksalsogotoDirectorGeneralof theBudgetOfficeof theFederation,Dr.BrightOkogu,forprovidingrelevantfiscalandbudgetinformationrelatingtotheMDGsinNigeria.

Thanks are due to Dr. Vincent Akinyosoye, Director-General, National Bureau of Statistics and his team, for attending to our needs for data and statistics. We also got helpful attention from the officersinthePlanning,ResearchandStatisticsdepartmentsof respectivegovernmentinstitu-tions including the Federal Ministry of Health, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Federal Min-istry of Water Resources as well as the Research Department of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Wealsoacknowledgethecooperationof officersof theUnitedNationsDevelopmentPro-gramme, World Bank, African Development Bank and UK Department of International De-velopment (DFID) in granting our requests for interviews and also providing useful literature.

Critical logistics and secretarial support was provided by staff of the African Insti-tute for Applied Economics, Enugu, Nigeria. Special gratitude is due to staff of the In-stitute, particularly Mr. Celestine Nzeh, Mr. Oliver Ujah, Ms. Queeneth Anyanwu, Mrs. Beatrice Ndibe, Mr. Itobore Diejomaoh and Mr. Chiwuike Uba for their individu-al and collective assistance throughout the field study, data analysis and report writing.

viii

Executive Summary

Context and Objectives of the Study

In 2005, at the UN World Summit and Mid-term Review of Progress towards the Millen-nium Development Goals (MDGs) targets, world leaders resolved that countries with extreme poverty adopt and begin to implement, by the end of 2006, MDGs-based poverty reduc-tion strategies/national development plans if they do not have one. In the same vein, coun-tries that already have national plans were urged to align them with MDGs-based planning.

Against this backdrop, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) initi-ated multi-country studies to analyse the experiences and lessons of MDGs-based planning inAfrica. ThisNigeria case study isoneof these country studies. Specifically, theNigeriacase study brings insights from experiences and challenges of aligning national planning pro-cesses with MDGs-based planning frameworks in a federal setting where autonomous sub-national governments impact significantlyonoverallnationalMDGspolicies and spending.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

By 2005, when the UN World Summit resolved that countries should design and implement MDGs-based development plans, Nigeria was already midway in the implementation of the equivalent of poverty reduction strategy (PRS) – the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). Within this context, the study examined the alignment of NEEDS-1 and subsequent planning processes (including NEEDS-2, Nigeria Vision 2020 and Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan) with MDGs-based planning framework. The study combines desk research and interviews with relevant authorities of Federal and State Govern-ments, as well as NGOs and multilateral and bilateral development partners in the country.

Nigeria’s Progress toward the MDGs 2015 targets

Existing MDGs reports show that there is scope for achieving the MDGs targets in uni-versal primary education, gender equality and women empowerment, HIV/AIDS, as-pects of environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for develop-ment. But, current trends reflect limited prospects of attaining the MDGs targets inpoverty reduction, child mortality, maternal health and diseases other than HIV/AIDS.

Alignment of National Planning Processes with MDGs

ThoughNEEDSrepresentsasignificantattemptatgettingatrulynationalPRSforNigeria,the SEEDS (state-level PRS) were just derivatives or offshoots, rather than foundations or building blocks of the national plan. In both process and content, NEEDS lacked the es-sential bottom-up planning architecture that should underpin the national development plan process in federal setting like Nigeria. Current national development planning processes in-cluding the Vision 2020 and Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan 2010-2013 have howev-

ix

er attempted to overcome this top-bottom approach. The Vision 2020 blueprint has been prepared based on synthesis of Vision 2020 reports by the various States1 of the country. In similar vein, the process of formulating the Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan 2010-2013 reflects attempt inbottom-topapproach.However, the ‘theoretical ideal’whereby thenational plan is the culminated synthesis of Federal and State Governments’ plans is in re-ality constrained by institutional weaknesses, particularly in inter-governmental coordination.

The MDGs-Impact of Debt Relief Gains Spending

NEEDSenunciatedawiderangeof MDGs-friendlyfiscalandinstitutionalreforms.But,thegreater impetus for MDGs-consistent planning came from successful negotiation of debt re-lief from the Paris Club in 2005. The deal released roughly US$1 billion or N100 billion per year (otherwise referred to as the debt relief gains) for spending by the Nigerian Government. Under the agreement, Nigeria committed to channel the annual savings from debt relief to MDGs spending. The debt relief fund was expected to provide an additional 5% of govern-ment expenditure for MDGs. Public spending of the debt relief savings was to be coordinated andmonitoredbyaSpecialPresidentialUnit,knownastheOfficeof theSeniorSpecialAs-sistant to the President on MDGs (OSSAP-MDGs), under the Overview of Public Spending in NEEDS (OPEN), widely regarded as Nigeria’s equivalent of Virtual Poverty Fund (VPF).

UndertheOPENinitiative,governmentadoptedmeasuresfortrackingtheefficiencyandef-fectiveness of debt relief savings for MDGs-related expenditure. The Initiative featured per-haps the largest single investment in M & E from 2006-2008, among federal agencies. In the same vein, the federal government, in 2005, adopted the integrated accounting system to tag, track and monitor the spending of debt relief savings for MDGs. The measure tallied with the rolling out of the fiscal strategy paper,medium term expenditure framework andme-dium-term sector strategies, also in 2005. It was only in 2006, that is, one year to the end of NEEDS timeframe, that the Federal Government launched MDGs needs assessment (cost-ing) in line with MDGs-based planning. The costing exercise covered 2006-2015 with 2006 as thebaseline. It focusedon thefirst seven (outof eight)MDGs,11 targets and32 indi-cators. Having completed the costing exercise, it is unclear the extent to which the costing outputs will be mainstreamed into the budgetary framework of the different line Ministries.

Coordination and Monitoring Systems are Weak and Poorly Integrated

Overall, the MDGs coordination and monitoring system is weak and disjointed. On the one hand, the Nigeria MDGs Reports give progress towards the MDGs in terms of achievement of the various indicators and the gaps in relation to the 2015 targets. The MDGs Reports do not link the performance on various indicators to the amount of public spending and outputs generated. On the other hand, the budget monitoring reports (BMRs) give the amount of spending and the activities/outputs realized. The BMRs neither contain the outcomes in terms of use of goods and services nor impacts on MDGs indicators. This shows a lack of connectivity of the budget monitoring reports and the MDGs progress reports. Moreover, the MDGs monitoring and eval-

�.State Governments set up Stakeholder Development Committees to articulate and formulate their respective Vision 2020 drafts which formed inputs for the National Vision 2020 blueprint.

x

uation process lack a systematic logical framework for connecting outputs, outcomes to impact.

There is some collaboration between the NPC and OSSAP-MDGs in MDGs reporting and needs assessment (costing). However, insufficient collaboration and coordination exist, forexample, in the identification, monitoring and evaluation of federal government’s MDGsinterventions as well as in the monitoring of MDGs activities and progress in the States. The existing bipolar M & E arrangement is susceptible to overlapping, duplication and in-ter-agency rivalries. There is therefore, a large scope for better coordination, organized col-laboration and unified approach by the M & E agencies including the National PlanningCommission,OSSAP-MDGs,BudgetOfficeof theFederation andMDGs-bearingMDAs.

Institutional Weaknesses Hinder National MDGs-Based Planning

Institutional and capacity weaknesses impede the alignment of NEEDS with MDGs-based planning. The planning systems at federal and subnational levels are fraught with debilitat-ing factors which include lack of adequate capacity for information processing, inadequate analytical skills, poor mobilization of stakeholders, low political attention to the plan-ning process and lack of coherence between planning and budgeting system. There is ad-ditional concern about sustainability of institutional framework and capacity retention for MDGs-based planning. The OSSAP-MDGs currently serves a vital complementary role in the coordination, monitoring and reporting of MDGs. Nevertheless, it remains an ad hoc administrative creation that exists at the instance of the President. Parallel to the OSSAP-MDGs is the National Planning Commission (NPC), which has statutory responsibility for the formulation, coordination and monitoring of long-term, medium-term and short-term national development plans including annual plans, budgets, medium-term and perspective plans at the federal, state and local government levels. Ironically, most existing MDGs-based planning and monitoring capacity lie within OSSAP-MDGs. The poor diffusion of capac-ity from OSSAP-MDGs to MDGs line ministries and agencies, including the National Plan-ning Commission, leaves big question marks for achieving coordination and sustainability.

Poor Data Quality has Hindered MDGs-based Planning and Monitoring

Capacity weaknesses also manifest in paucity of timely, adequate and reliable statistical data for MDGs monitoring and evaluation. At the time of formulating the NEEDS in 2003, most requisite data were in arrears, existing datasets lacked coherence and synergy. Also, data gaps across indicators diminish the usefulness of Nigeria’s annual MDGs reports. While considerable improvements have been achieved since 2003 through reforms at the Nation-al Bureau of Statistics, much still needs to be done and there is yawning need for statisti-cal capacity building at the sub-national levels. In order to achieve systematic array of co-herent, consistent and complete statistical data over time, Nigerian statistical agencies need improved technical skills, increased institutional resources and better coordination/col-laboration between national and subnational levels. In particular, the MDGs monitoring and evaluation systems will benefit immensely if there is systematic matching of MDGsstatistical data from the three major national surveys – the Multiple Indicator Cluster Sur-vey, Nigerian Living Standard Survey and the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire Survey.

xi

MDGs Progress Reports Lack Sufficient Evidence Base

Till date, Nigeria has produced three annual MDGs Reports (2004, 2005 & 2006). These re-ports x-ray the progress scorecard on the MDGs 2015 targets, the contexts and prospects of the march towards the MDGs targets. The Nigeria MDGs Reports give progress towards the MDGs in terms of achievement of the various indicators and the gaps in relation to the 2015 targets. The MDGs Reports do not link the performance on various indicators to the amount of public spending and outputs generated. Besides, the MDGs annual report does not contain complementary State-level disaggregated statistics, thus obscuring apparent wide variations in MDGs status across the States. In order to solve this knowledge gap, some state governments are producing state-level MDGs reports. Without coordinated and synergistic interplay of national-level and disaggregate state-level MDGs statistics, there might be is-sues of non-coherence and disparity that raises credibility questions about MDGs statistics.

Capacity Weaknesses are More Acute at the Subnational Level

Evidence indicates that the capacity constraints to MDGs-based planning and monitoring tend to be more pronounced at the subnational levels. Nigeria’s subnational (state and local) gov-ernments enjoy autonomy for MDGs public spending, economic planning and sector policies. But, experience shows that state and local governments have largely depended on the policy leadership from the federal government. This dualistic scenario of autonomy and dependence is linked to the fact that subnational governments lack commensurate capacities to undertake MDGs-based planning. The situation can be linked to the fact that many states were created from existing ones without corresponding efforts to develop human and institutional capaci-ties for strategic planning, economic policymaking and public service delivery. Older states often display greater policy and institutional capacities, relative to younger states. Moreover, the federal government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) seem to enjoy generally higherconcentrationof moreexperiencedpublicofficials,thanstategovernments.Thus,thepublic service bureaucracy in many states is weaker relative to their federal government coun-terparts. For them to actualise their rightful roles and responsibilities for the MDGs, therefore, the subnational jurisdictions will require scaling-up of planning and monitoring capabilities.

�

1. Introduction

1.1 Context: MDGs and the 2005 World Summit

At the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000, a historic gathering of world leaders ad-opted the Millennium Declaration, committing their countries to a new global partnership to reducepoverty and achieve sustainabledevelopment.For thefirst time inhistory, coun-tries collectively agreed on a globally applicable set of development goals, indicators and tar-gets, now famously called the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The Millennium De-velopmentGoals are theworld’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extremepoverty in its multiple dimensions—income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shel-ter and exclusion—while promoting gender equality, education and environmental sustain-ability. As themost broadly supported, comprehensive and specific poverty reduction tar-gets the world has ever established, the Millennium Development Goals have become the standards for global and country-level self assessment, peer review and mutual accountability among countries. In addition, the MDGs now serve as the fulcrum of development policy across the globe and benchmarks against which citizens hold their governments accountable.

Twoyearslater(specificallyinMarch2002),worldleadersmetagainattheInternationalConferenceon Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, and agreed on a landmark framework for global development partnership for poverty reduction. Both the Millennium Declaration and the MonterreyConsensusmarkedsignificantnewturnininternationaldevelopment.Atthefollow-upmeeting in the same year - the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa-UNmemberstatesreaffirmedtheMDGsastheworld’stime-bounddevelopmenttargets.

In order to promote systematic planning and investments for the achievement of (not just accel-erating progress towards the) MDGs, the UN Secretary-General launched the UN Millennium Project, an independent advisory body charged with analyzing and proffering best strategies formeetingtheMDGs.InJanuary2005,theUNMillenniumProjectpresenteditsfindingsandrecommendations – Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the MDGs. The Report gives 10 broad recommendations. One is that developing country governments should adopt development strategies bold enough to achieve or even exceed the MDGs 2015 targets. In countries where Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) or national development plans or strategies already exist, such should be aligned with MDGs-based planning. In line with these recommendations, the UN World Summit and Mid-term Review of Progress towards the MDGs targets, world leaders resolved that countries with extreme poverty adopt and begin to implement MDGs-based poverty reduction strategies/national development plans if they do not have one.

Against this backdrop, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), through the MDGs/Poverty Analysis and Monitoring Section, has launched a set of country studies to investigate the implementation of this resolution in Africa, ex-amine experiences and draw lessons for improving MDGs-based planning in Africa.

This Nigeria case study is part of multi-country assessments of MDG-based planning across

2

Africa. The multi-country studies will provide analytical insights for peer-learning, knowl-edge sharing and capacity building under the “African PRS/MDG Learning Group” and the “Enhanced Knowledge Sharing Network to Support the Poverty Reduction Process in Africa”. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the country studies is given as Appendix V.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives

To examine experiences learnt in formulating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating Nigeria’s MDG-consistent poverty reduction strategies or National Economic Empow-erment and Development Strategy (NEEDS).To draw lessons for the articulating of the national vision, for the process of formulat-ing medium-term strategies to support the national vision and for improving the design and implementation of the MDGs at the local level.

1.3 Key Issues Addressed by the Study

Bases for and process of articulating Nigeria’s national vision

Analyze whether the country has, through a participatory process, established a national development vision that fully takes on board the MDGs;

• ReviewtheextenttowhichtheMDGsaretailoredtocountry-specificconditionsandpriorities through a process that translates a national vision into measurable targets; and

• Assess the degree to which national vision and tailored targets are supported by a set of policy priorities and an effective and supporting framework.

Assessment of Nigeria’s medium-term strategy for MDGs

• Review the degree to which the national development vision is supported by re-alistic medium-term strategies that ensure the achievement of the MDGs;

• Evaluate how existing sector strategies are reviewed and adapted so as to be in tune with the national development strategy that is adopted for achieving the MDGs;

• Assess the extent to which existing cross-cutting strategies (HIV/AIDS, gender) are re-viewed and adapted in the national development strategy, on which efforts to reach the MDGs are anchored; and

• Evaluate whether the MDGs alignment efforts are supported by efforts to improve budget executionandreporting,whichareessentialinensuringefficientandeffectiveuseof resources.

Subnational Dimensions and Localization of the MDGs

Assess the manner and extent to which Nigeria’s MDGs-consistent economic plan has been devolved to subnational and local levels;Evaluate whether there has been a comprehensive assessment of needs, institutions and resources at the local level;

•

•

•

•

•

�

Analyze whether the national development strategy assess the capacity of subnational jurisdictions to formulate, execute and report public expenditure programs; andAssess the degree to which dialogue and consensus building guide the processes of prioritizing local development agenda as well setting local targets.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting of MDGs

Assess whether there is an institutional setup for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting progress toward the MDGs; To examine the nature and degree of coordination and collaboration between agencies charged with monitoring, evaluation and reporting;Evaluate the degree to which data requirements, for monitoring, evaluation and re-portingarefulfilled,thatis,theextenttowhichmonitoring,evaluationandreportingsystemsarebackedbyasetof intermediary(inputandoutput)andfinal(outcomeandimpact)indicators,whicharetailoredtocountryandregion-specificities;andReviewspecificareasof capacityneedforeffectivemonitoring,evaluationandreport-ing systems.

1.4 Methodology

The study combined the analysis of documentary (published and unpublished) information and targeted interviews with respondents. Documents from government, international develop-ment agencies and non-governmental organizations were explored for information on MDGs-oriented and related policies, institutions and strategies. Also, relevant government documents, monitoring/evaluation reports and research papers were studied in order to obtain literature and statistics on budget and expenditure and on progress towards the MDGs 2015 targets. In particular, some additional literature and statistics on the subnational dimensions in MDGs planning, monitoring and evaluation were obtained from the author’s previous paper prepared for the UNECA International Conference on ‘Subnational Jurisdictions and MDGs in Africa’.2

Primary datawere collected through oral interviewswith officials of MDGs-relevant gov-ernment agencies, civil society organisations and international development agencies in the country. The interviews were done using the generic survey instrument, given as Appen-dix I. The face-to-face approach enriched the questionnaire feedback by allowing for elab-orate discussion, interaction with respondents. The government agencies in the sample in-clude Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Women Affairs (MoWA), Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR), Ministry of Finance (MoF), National Planning Commission (NPC), Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) andOffice of the Senior SpecialAssistant to the President onMDGs (OSSAP-MDGs). Officials of some international development partners includingUnited Nations Development Programme, World Bank and African Development Bank were

2. Eboh, E. C. (2009). Has Autonomy of State Governments Bolstered the Achievement of MDGs in Nigeria? Paper presented at the UNECA Expert Meeting on The role of sub-national jurisdic-tions in efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Africa”, in collabora-tion with Federal Ministry of Finance of Nigeria, Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the Pres-ident of Nigeria on MDGs (OSSAP-MDGs) and The World Bank, May 5-7, 2009, Abuja, Nigeria.

•

•

•

•

•

•

4

also interviewed. A total of twenty eight (28) individuals from across the relevant govern-ment MDAs, international development agencies, non-governmental organizations were inter-viewed. The names and organizations/institutions of the respondents are given in Appendix II.

In terms of conceptual framework, this study observes that Nigeria has begun implementa-tion of her equivalent of poverty reduction strategy (that is, National Economic Empow-erment and Development Strategy - NEEDS) at the time the UN World Summit resolved that countries should design and implement MDGs-based development plans. Nigeria there-fore falls within the category of countries which should align existing planning instruments and processes including national and sectoral medium-term plans with the MDGs. In view of this peculiar circumstance, this study examined the alignment of NEEDS policies/im-plementation and successive planning processes to MDGs-based planning as prescribed by the UN World Summit 2005 and Mid-term Review of Progress towards the MDGs targets.

1.5 Organization of the Report

Thispaper isorganized into7Sections.Section1definesthestudywithinthetwincontextof the 2005 World Summit and UNECA’s initiative to inquire into the experiences and chal-lenges of MDGs-based planning in Africa. Section 2 gives the economic context of the MDGs challenge in Nigeria. Section 3 reviews Nigeria’s progress scorecard on the MDGs 2015 targets. Section 4 outlines the conceptual and practice dimensions of MDGs-based planning in line with the UN Millennium Project. Section 5 examines the alignment of Ni-geria’s visioning and planning processes with the MDGs-based planning frameworks, as op-erationally defined by the UNMillennium Project. Section 6 explores the implications of Nigeria’s federal structure and subnational jurisdictions on MDGs and MDGs-based plan-ning. Section 7 evaluates the national and subnational systems for the monitoring, evaluation and reportingof theMDGs.Section8gives theconclusionand lessons from thefindings.

2. Economic Context of the MDGs Challenge in Nigeria

Since attaining political independence in 1960, Nigeria has exhibited vivid ironies in social and economic development. Despite huge endowments of natural and human resources, eco-nomic development and living conditions have been undermined by bad political governance and economic mismanagement. In 1960, agriculture dominated the economic structure (about 64% of GDP), provided the greater proportion of government revenue, foreign exchange and employment. But, with the oil boom of the 1970s, crude oil overtook agriculture as the largest single source of government revenue/foreign exchange, even though agriculture con-tinued to provide the bulk of employment. The decline in agriculture share of GDP did not result from productivity-induced releases of resources into secondary sectors, but due to the phenomenal rise in crude oil sector. The surge in oil revenues during the 1970s precipitated dramatic expansion in the economy fueled by sharp rise in public spending. But, from early to late 1980s, the shock from decline in oil prices impacted negative GDP growth rates and eco-nomic indicators deteriorated. The economic stagnation continued to the 1990s as per capita GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms fell 40% from $1215 in 1980 to $706 in 2000.

�

Poverty rose from 28.1% in 1980 to 65% in 1996, coupled with decline in several human de-velopment indicators, including access to health and education. The “boom-and-burst” cycle exposed the unsustainable dependence on oil sector and the negative impacts on the pro-ductivity and competitiveness of the non-oil economy. By 2003, external and domestic debts amounted to about 70% of GDP, with serious budgetary consequences of debt servicing.

Consequentuponmonetaryandfiscalmeasuresandinstitutionalreforms,coupledwithrela-tively more favourable oil prices, the period from 2000-2003 witnessed modest improvements in the economy. Annual per capita GDP grew by 2.2% during 1999-2003, compared to stag-nant levels throughout most of the 1990s. The period also witnessed a decline in poverty from 65% in 1996 to 54% in 2004. Since 2003, there has been remarkably improved macroeconomic and growth performance. The situation is associated with the adoption of the National Eco-nomic and Empowerment Strategy (NEEDS) in 2004. NEEDS was a medium-term economic reform framework designed to promote sustainable growth, poverty reduction and MDGs. Under NEEDS, the federal government initiated wide-ranging macroeconomic, institutional and sector reforms for a private sector-driven economy. The fortuitous rise in internation-al price of crude oil and concomitant increase in government revenues provided a favour-able fiscal context and relatively bettermacroeconomic environment, as shown inTable 1.

Table 1: Selected Macroeconomic Indicators: NEEDS-1 Targets and Achievements, 2004-2008Indicators 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Domestic Output and PricesGDP at Current Market Prices (N billion)

11,673.6 14,735.3 18,709.6 20,853.6 24,048.5

GDP at Current Market Prices (US$ billion)

76.17 88.37 144.49 148.69 175.36

GDP per Capita (N) 87,845.3 109,155.1 132,604.3 142,957.1 159,906.8GDP per Capita (US$) 658.02 826.31 1,030.34 1,136.11 1,349.08Real GDP Growth (%) 6.6

(5.0)6.5(6.0)

6.0(6.0)

6.5(7.0)

6.4

Oil Sector 3.3(0.0)

0.5(0.0)

-4.2(0.0)

-4.5(0.0)

-4.8

Non-Oil Sector 7.8(7.3)

8.6(8.5)

9.4(8.3)

9.5(9.5)

9.1

GDP Deflator Growth (%) -0.2 22.0 18.1 3.3 12.5Inflation Rate (%) (Dec-over-Dec)

10.0(10.0)

11.6(9.5)

8.5(9.5)

6.6(9.0)

15.1

Gross National Savings (% of GDP)

19.27(14.1)

18.03(17.2)

32.80(23.0)

33.16(29.0)

35.31

Federal Government Fi-nance (% of GDP)Retained Revenue 11.4

(9.7)11.9(7.8)

10.4(7.6)

11.2(7.3)

13.3

Total Expenditure 12.9(23.5)

13.0(23.4)

10.9(22.9)

11.8(22.3)

13.5

* Figures in parenthesis are targets set under NEEDS-1, 2004-2007.Source: CBN Annual Reports for the period to 2008

GrowthhasnottranslatedtosignificantMDGsscorecard:Inspiteof theimprovedmacroeco-

6

nomicperformanceinthelastfiveyears,thereremainhugechallengesof sustainablegrowth,poverty reduction and attainment of the MDGs 2015 targets. Overall growth has fallen below levels (that is, about 8-10%), required to position the country on the path to achieving the pov-erty-related MDG of halving income poverty by 2015. Even though growth has been driven by non-oil sector, particularly labour-intensive agriculture, employment opportunities have not increased commensurate to the overall growth of the economy, leading to suggestions of “job-less growth”. With an average annual investment rate of less than 14% of GDP, Nigeria is far below the minimum investment level of about 30% of GDP required to unleash poverty reducing growth rate of up to 8%.3 Fiscal decentralization remains a challenge to effective macroeconomicstabilizationandefficientpublicfinancemanagementandthereislargescopetoimproveintergovernmentalcoordinationof fiscalpoliciesandbudgetmanagementinorderto enhance collective impact on public services and MDGs. Though national poverty reduced from 70% in 2003 to 56% in 2005, the essential structural changes for aligning economic growth trajectorytoattainmentof theMDGstargets(poverty,health,education,etc)remainsdeficient.

3. Progress Towards the MDGs 2015 Targets

Beginning from 2004, Nigeria has produced three annual MDGs Reports (2004, 2005 & 2006). The Report gives annual scorecard on progress towards the MDGs by 2015. Also, it gives the institutional and policy context as well as the challenges and imperatives for MDGs tar-gets. Though the most recent progress report is about three years in arrears, it underscores the generally slow progress and the enormity of the challenges in meeting the 2015 targets.

According to the most recent MDGs report (2006), Nigeria has good prospects of achiev-ing the targets for universal primary education, gender equality and women empowerment, HIV/AIDS, aspects of environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development. The literacy rate of 15-24 years old increased from 70.7% in 1991 to 80.20% in 2005, against the 2015 targets of 100%. Progress towards the 2015 targets on the three indicators is considered as good. The ratio of girls to boys (girls per 100 boys) in prima-ry education is about 81% in 2005, against the 2015 targets of 100%. The ratio of girls to boys (girls per 100 boys) in secondary education is about 81% in 2005, against the 2015 tar-gets of 100%. On the other hand, the ratio of girls to boys in tertiary education (girls per 100 boys) increased from 46% in 1991 to 72% in 2003 against the 2015 targets of 100%.

On the other hand, current trends indicate very slow progress and in fact dim prospects for meeting MDGs targets relating to poverty reduction, child mortality, maternal health and dis-eases other than HIV/AIDS.4 Poverty headcount is about 54.4% against the 2015 target of 21%. Progress is also regarded as slow on this hunger indicator. Infant mortality rate (per 1000livebirths)wasabout110in2005,againstthe2015targetof 30.3.Under-fivemortal-ity rate (per 1000 live births) was about 197 in 2004, against the 2015 target of 63.7. Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) was about 800 in 2004, against the 2015 target of 75.

The slow progress towards the MDGs 2015 targets underscores the necessity for MDGs-based planning framework in Nigeria. The MDGs-based planning is indeed a necessary ve-3. NEEDS document, p.9.4. 2006 Nigeria MDGs Report

�

hicle to mobilize and harness national resources in plural political systems, like Nigeria. The MDGs-based national planning framework will give a shared vision and common under-standing of what needs to be done to achieve desired national goals and delineate the re-sponsibilities of respective stakeholders. In addition, MDGs-based planning framework is justifiedasaresponsetotheinadequaciesof thePRSPapproachesforachievingtheMDGs.

4. MDGs-based Plan/Strategy: From Concept and Practice

Consequent upon the UN Millennium Declaration of 2000, “MDGs” became the unifying con-ceptual framework in global development literature and the universal empirical benchmark for measuring the progress of human development within and across countries. But, it was not until 2005thattheconceptof “MDGs-based”planningorplanwasgivenclearoperationaldefinitionby the UN Millennium Project (UNMP). According to the UNMP report, MDGs-based national development plan is any ambitious goal-based national strategy that aims to achieve, or exceed, the MDGs.5 Instead of strategies to “accelerate progress toward the MDGs” through incremen-tal expansions of social services and infrastructure, MDGs-based plans are bold and long-term strategies aimed at achieving the quantitative targets and goals. Corresponding to this ambition, MDGs-basedplanningworksbackwardfromtheMDGstargetsandtimehorizontodefinethepolicies and investments required between now and 2015. This approach differs from the con-ventional practice - which is to formulate investment strategies independent of needs after the macroeconomic framework and overall budgetary ceilings have been set. Rather, MDGs-based strategy is formulated through a reverse planning process6 – an assessment of the actual MDG investmentneeds,followedbythedesignof asuitablemacroeconomicframeworkandfinanc-ing strategy. Additional core features of MDGs-based national development strategy include:

ItisorientedtoachievingspecificMDGsoutcomes;The process of developing the plan should be inclusive and transparent and have na-tional ownership and high-level political commitment; It is based on bottoms-up needs assessment in terms of rigorous estimation of inputs (humanresources,financialresourcesandinfrastructure)forachievingtheMDGs;Itidentifiesafullsetof interventionsforimplementationatascalerequiredtoachievethe MDGs;It contains integrated and multi-sectoral measures to meet each of the MDGs;Itislong-terminoutlook–providesforsignificantlong-terminvestmentstotacklehu-man capacity and infrastructure constraints; andIt is linked to national budgets – constitutes the basis of national budgets and expendi-ture frameworks for MDGs investments (UN Millennium Project, 2005b).

Preparing MDGs-based national development strategy requires a planning process under-pinned by some fundamentals. On the basis of a nationally-owned planning process, the 5. UN Millennium Project (2005a). Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Devel-opment Goals. New York: United Nations.6. UN Millennium Project (2005b). Preparing National Strategies to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York: United Nations.

••

•

•

••

•

8

MDGs based strategy will necessarily begin with poverty mapping and review of dimensions and dynamics of poverty and living conditions. The baseline review/inventory is followed with needsassessment.Thefirstlegof needsassessmentistoidentifythespecificpublicinvest-ments/policies necessary to achieve the MDGs (including faster economic growth, key public investments, public policy and public management imperatives and private sector promotion). Thesecondlegistoquantifyspecificinvestments(human,financialandinfrastructure)acrossmultiple sectors to meet the MDGs. Based on the results of the inventory, baseline review and needs assessment, a 10-year coherent framework is formulated for achieving the MDGs. The 10-year MDGs framework becomes the basis for preparing the national development strategy as a more detailed, operational plan, linked to a medium-term expenditure framework and to a monitoring and accountability mechanisms (UN Millennium Project, 2005a; 2005b).

5. Alignment of Nigeria’s Visioning/planning To MDGs- based Planning

5.1 The Planning Context vis-à-vis MDGs

Using the benchmark characterization of MDGs-based planning, this section examines the na-ture and extent to which Nigeria’s visioning and development planning have been aligned with MDGs. The relevant national planning scenarios under MDGs-oriented scrutiny include the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) I & 2, 7-Point Agen-da, Vision 2020 and Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan. While NEEDS-I was implemented from 2004-2007, NEEDS-2 which was to cover 2008-2011 was replaced with the Seven-Point Agenda by the new federal government in 2007. The Vision 2020 blueprint was completed in October 2009 while Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan covering 2010-2013 is currently being developed. Among these recent national policy frameworks/development strategies, NEEDS I is perhaps the most relevant case scenario for examining alignment with MDGs-based plan-ning. This is due to two factors. NEEDS-I was the prevailing national development strategy (equivalent of poverty reduction strategy) at the time poor countries were urged by the UN World Summit 2005 to either adopt/implement MDGs-based national poverty reduction strat-egies/national development plans or align their existing PRSPs/national development plans with the MDGs. Moreso, NEEDS-I is the only national development strategy that has run its full course, 2004-2007. Notwithstanding the unique relevance of NEEDS-1 to the context of this study, it is remains useful to examine the alignment of successive planning/strategy formu-lation processes (including NEEDS-2, 7-Point Agenda, Vision 2020) to MDGs-based planning.

5.2 Philosophy and Succession of National Development Planning

The fundamental philosophy underpinning Nigeria’s national development vision is the sub-sisting Nigerian Constitution 1999. Chapter II of the Nigerian Constitution otherwise referred to as the “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy”, states among others, that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of govern-ment. Government is entrusted with the responsibility to harness the resources of the na-tiontoservethecommongoodandpromotenationalprosperitybasedonanefficient,dy-

�

namic and self-reliant economy. Also, it states that government should manage the economy so as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen. Furthermore, it specifically requires that theState shall ensure that suitable and adequate shelter, suitableand adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment benefits, etc are provided for the citizens (Federal Republic of Nige-ria, 1999). In fact, this national philosophy (which was also enunciated in previous Consti-tutions) has been the generic bases for development planning since independence in 1960.

In the 1st post independence national development plan, 1962-1968, there was an attempt at en-acting a common planning objective for the entire country. It aimed at laying the administrative and institutional framework for the future growth of the then infant economy. The successor plan, the 2nd National Development Plan, 1970-1974, which was launched after the Civil War, aimed at reconstructing the war-battered economy and promoting economic and social development. The 2nd Plan aimed at integrating the 12 newly created states into an organic national framework. As the 2nd Plan lapsed, a very ambitious 3rd National Development Plan was enunciated to ex-pand agriculture, industry, transport, housing, water supplied, health facilities, education, rural electrificationandcommunitydevelopment.Theplanwasbasedonthestrategyof utilizingtheresources from oil to develop the productive capacity of the economy and improve overall welfare.

To consolidate the progress achieved with the 1975-1980 Plan, the 4th National Development Plan 1981-1985 was aimed at promoting national self-reliance, balanced development and new national orientation as well as fostering improvements in agriculture, manufacturing, educa-tion, manpower development and infrastructure. There were also emphases on social services including health, housing and water supply in rural and urban areas. It incorporated, for the first time, the local government system in the planning framework, in linewith the extantConstitution. The ambitious stance of the Plan was undermined by steep decline in revenue in the wake of the crash of international oil prices in the early 1980s. The government re-sponded using a series of demand management or austerity measures aimed at conserving for-eign exchange and reducing the general level of domestic expenditures. These measures were encapsulated under the Economic Stabilization Act 1982 which aimed at rationalizing overall publicexpendituresandrestoringfiscalbalanceinthedomesticandexternalsectors.Duetothecircumstances, the country achieved merely 50% of the planned investment during 1981-85.

By 1986, the economic downturn had worsened. The government adopted the Structural Adjust-ment Programme (SAP).7 The SAP was aimed at restructuring and diversifying the productive base,achievingfiscalandbalanceof paymentsviability,ensuringsustainablenon-inflationarygrowth and minimizing the dominance of unproductive public sector investment and increasing the role of the private sector. Though the SAP was intended to span the initial period July 1986-June 1988, its core elements were to become the principles for economic reforms in the ensuing period. The trend continued until 1994 when a new military government overturned economic liberalization,byrevertingtofixedexchangeratesandadministrativelycontrolledinterestrates.

Apparently dissatisfied by economic planning experience with the SAP and awed by thegrave political consequences of continued economic deterioration, the same government that enunciated SAP reverted to deliberate multi-year planning, beginning from 1988. The plan-7. SAP was adopted following the rejection of the IMF facility by Nigerians through a national IMF loan debate.

10

ningapproachwasadeparture fromthepreviousfixed-termmediumtermplanningmodelof the post-independence period. Rather, the government adopted a new planning approach based on a long-term strategic plan implemented through three-year rolling plans. With-out a long-term strategic plan, the government went ahead to launch the Rolling Plans. For more than ten years, 1988-1999, Nigeria practiced the three-year Rolling Plans, but they were largely ineffectual in the absence of a perspective (long-term) planning framework. Also, be-causetheannualbudgetsdidnotderivespecificallyfromtheRollingPlans,their implemen-tation was ineffectual. The Rolling Plan approach was continued until 1999 when a civilian democratic government enunciated its economic programme under the aegis of Economic Policy Directions for Nigeria, 1999-2003. The programme hinged upon the strategy of pro-moting market-oriented private sector-led economy with government serving as a catalyst andprovingtheenablingenvironmentfortheprivatesectortothriveandflourish.Govern-ment outlined basic principles for policy and legislative changes aimed at attracting foreign direct investment and enhancing private sector role in the economy. In addition to the fact that the implementation tools were not well articulated, the tenets of the programme were not domesticated by subnational and local jurisdictions. Moreover, there were not enough political will and executive capacity to implement the complex market-oriented reforms.

Midway in the implementation of the Economic Policy Direction for Nigeria, 1999-2003, and in line with the framework of the country-level Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), Nigeria started the process of developing an Interim Paper on Poverty Reduction Strategy (I-PRSPs), in February 2001. By March 2003, Nigeria had completed the Draft Interim Paper on PRSP. The process of developing the Interim Paper has been critiqued as being consultative rather than participatory, ad hoc and not mainstreamed (Eboh, 2003). The national ownership of PRSP was stymied by public perceptions that it was donor-driven and externally instigated. Worse still, in practice, government showed very little political commitment to the process. Not surprisingly therefore, on the heels of the completion of the Interim Paper in 2003, the same government embarked upon what it termed a home-grown equivalent of the PRSP, known as the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS-1), 2004-2007. Towards sustaining the reforms and consolidating upon the achievements under NEEDS-1, the federal government initiated the NEEDS-2 process (with the perspective of Vision 2020) to cover the period 2008-2011. However, NEEDS-2 was never adopted formally by the government. This is because the new government rather encapsulated its policy directions as the 7-Point Agenda. The 7-Point Agenda outlines the policy thrusts, priority sectors and agenda for social and economic development. At the same time, the government commenced theprocessof fixed-termdevelopmentplanningforthearticulationof theVision2020Eco-nomic Transformation Blueprint and the Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan 2010-2013.

��

Within the context of the National Vision, the achievement of the MDGs will depend on the extent of MDGs mainstreaming in the national economic development framework. In clarifying the path to sustainable actualization of the MDGs, literature underscores the fact that success is more likely when efforts are focused also on solving fundamental insti-tutional constraints to better livelihoods, rather than just increasing the provision of public services directly linked to the MDGs.8 All respondents (100%) indicated that the country has a long-term national vision. But, 62% and 25% of the respondents stated that the na-tional vision is “very consistent” and “completely consistent” with the MDGs, respectively.

5.3 Alignment of Needs-1 To MDGs: The Status of Background Studies, Needs Assessment/costing and Participatory Processes

Background Studies and Key Assumptions: Several macroeconomic and sector studies were already in place at the time of drafting of NEEDS-1. But, they were largely pre-existing stand-alone studies, not deliberately intended or specifically commissioned for NEEDS-1.Nevertheless, they provided useful analytical evidence base for articulating the macroeco-nomic framework and policy priorities under NEEDS-1. The development challenges es-poused in these studies were reechoed in NEEDS-1. They included macroeconomic volatility, pooreconomicmanagement,weakfiscalandbudgetmanagement,lackof competitivebusi-ness environment for non-oil private sector growth and worsening and growing inequality.

MDGs Needs Assessment (Costing) in relation to National Planning: Though the NEEDS-1 time frame was 2004-2007, some form of MDGs needs assessment/costing exercise did not take place until 2006, midway into NEEDS-1. The costing exercise covered the period 2006-2015with2006asthebaseline.Itfocusedonthefirstseven(outof eight)MDGs,11targetsand 32 indicators. The models adopted are sector-based (that is, estimate cost of interventions in each of the MDGs sectors) rather goal-based (the cost of attaining each of the goals). The technical team for the costing exercise was coordinated by the OSSAP-MDGs and com-prisesofficials fromtherelevantgovernmentministries, theNationalPlanningCommissionandnationalconsultantswithtechnicalandfinancialsupportfromUNDP.Accordingtothecosting,9 it will take a cumulative sum of about US$248 billion to achieve the MDGs by 2015.

On an annual basis, the projected cost rises from $15bn in 2007 to $43bn in 2015, and an annual average of about $28 billion10 over the period. On per capita basis, the cost estimate rises from about $127.72 in 2009 to $233 in 2015 and averages about $164. The cost estimates were analyzed from several perspectives: annual stream of capital and recurrent; infrastructure 8. An example is given where achievement of MDGs education targets may not lead to gainful employment that assures income (UNCTAD, 2008 –The Least Developed Countries Report 2008 – Growth, Poverty and the Terms of Development Partnership).9. OSSAP-MDGs (2005). MDGs Needs Assessment and Financing Strategy for Nigeria, Abuja10. Based on data in CBN Annual Report for 2008, the projected cost ($28 billion) translates to about 16% of GDP estimate of $175.36 billion in 2008. The import of this project cost is the fact that the amount takes up the entire 2008 expenditure of the federal government and in fact reaches up to 50% of combined annual Year 2008 expenditures of the federal, state and local governments. The esti-mates underscore the huge challenge to identify and mobilise financing to meet MDGs investment re-quirements in a manner compatible with macroeconomic stability and fiscal competition pressures.

12

and human capital; sector-by-sector (eight sectors11 on the whole) and cost sharing between the three levels of government. Interview with the OSSAP-MDGs reveals optimism that the costing would influence federal government’s budgeting and resource allocation processes.

Level of Participation in the Preparation of NEEDS-1: The preparation of NEEDS-1 was anchored by a drafting team constituted by the National Planning Commission in 2003. The teamcomprisedacademics,industrialists,sectorexperts,financeexperts,economistsandgov-ernment technocrats. Roles and responsibilities of the drafting team were structured along the-matic issues –macroeconomic framework, sector policies, social and institutional climate, etc. The drafting team was given technical assistance by consultants under support of development partners. The consultants were charged with search for and collation of needed statistics and data from various ministries, departments and agencies, targeted reviews and documentation of literature, supplying the drafting team with data analysis feedbacks and conducting day-to-day management of the drafting process. On completion of the zero draft, the National Planning Commission sought and obtained inputs from the President and Federal Government Agen-cies. Based on these inputs and feedback, the zero draft was revised and presented to stake-holders in a forum attended by civil society, private sector and federal and state government agencies as well as development partners. In addition, inputs and feedback were obtained by electroniccommunicationfromthewebsitededicatedtothedraftingprocess.Thefirststageof consultation and feedback was followed by the revision of the zero draft by the drafting team. The resulting draft was then subjected to stakeholder reviews through consultative forums in the six geopolitical zones of the country. The stakeholder forums were instruments for elicit-ing the inputs and feedback from subnational actors – non-governmental organizations, private sector organizations, community-based associations and state governments’ agencies. Using the inputs and feedback from the stakeholder consultations, the drafting team produced yet anotherreviseddraftwhichwasthenpresentedtotheFederalExecutiveCouncilforratifica-tion.Afinaldraftwasproducedafterreflectingtheinputsof theFederalExecutiveCouncil.

Governmentofficialsandcivilsocietypractitionersdifferedonwhethertheprocessof pre-paringNEEDSwasparticipatoryornot.Governmentofficials rated theprocessaspartici-patory while civil society practitioners rated it as not participatory. About 75% of govern-ment officials say it was “very participatory”, while all the civil society officials say it was“not participatory”. The divergence of opinions underscores differential interpretation of ‘participatory processes’ between government and non-state actors and the need for mea-sures to promote common understanding of what constitutes ‘participation’ in policymaking.

5.4 MDGs-contents of Needs-1, Needs-2 & Vision 2020

In nominal terms, the MDGs were incorporated into the NEEDS-1 strategic goals which included poverty reduction, wealth creation, employment generation and value reorien-tation. The framework for achieving the goals consisted of four pillars: (i) growth and in-vestment-oriented macroeconomic framework; (ii) growing the private sector through infra-structure development, credit, market reforms and policies to increase output, productivity and competitiveness of domestic producers; (iii) social empowerment including health and educationsectorreforms,waterandsanitation;(iv)enhancingtheefficiencyandeffectiveness11. Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, Health, Housing, Roads, Water and Sanitation.

��

of governmentby changing theway government does itswork. Specifically, theNEEDS-1 policy thrusts relating to MDGs were cast in broad national imperatives: empowering people through education, improving health, improving environmental health, tackling the HIV/AIDS challenge and developing affordable housing. Others are promoting employ-ment creation for poverty reduction, empowering women, empowering youth and ensuring the welfare of children and strengthening safety nets. Each of these imperatives is further broken down into specific set of implementation measures/interventions. The measurescover institutional (legislative, regulatory) reforms, MDAs restructuring (roles/responsibili-ties, coordination/relationships and internal organization) as well as programme innovations.

On its part, NEEDS-2 was a continuation of the vision, mission and strategies of NEEDS-1,butwith targets redefinedfor2008-2011.With theperspectiveof beingoneof the top20 economies by 2020, NEEDS-2 was anchored upon the strategic framework centered on reducing poverty by 30% in 2011. The avenues for the strategic goal included wealth cre-ation and employment generation through promotion of domestic production and invest-ments. The key tools for promoting domestic production, productivity and competitiveness included human capital development, infrastructure development, sound macroeconomic management, good economic governance, peace and security. The priority sectors includ-ed agriculture, manufacturing/SMEs, solid minerals and oil and gas. In addition, the in-cluded cross-cutting imperatives were science, technology and innovations, gender, youth, nutrition, HIV/AIDS, environment and employment. Government emphasized the achieve-ment of MDGs as the centerpiece of the NEEDS-2 implementation strategy (NPC, 2007).

Nigeria Vision 2020 encapsulates the key principles and thrusts of NEEDS-2 and the 7Point Agenda, situating both within a long-range planning perspective to year 2020. The strategic framework of Vision 2020 is underpinned by macroeconomic framework and critical policy priorities for guaranteeing the well-being and productivity of the people, optimizing the key sources of economic growth, fostering sustainable social and eco-nomic development and deepening government’s ability to consistently translate strategy into actions/results (NPC, 2009). The Vision 2020 explicitly integrates the MDGs (pov-erty, health, education, housing, sanitation, gender equality/women empowerment) with-in the strategic goal given as “guaranteeing the well-being and productivity of the people”.

Allgovernmentofficials interviewed indicate that thecountryhas amedium-termstrategy(that is, NEEDS-1) to implement the MDGs-consistent national vision. About the major impetus for the MDGs-consistent national plan (NEEDS-1), the respondents indicated the following factors (in order of importance): new national orientation 57.1%, implementation of the UN Summit Outcome - 42.9%, increase in MDGs funding by development partners – 28.6%, – slow progress towards the targets -14.3%). In another vein, respondents were also asked their assessments of the bases for the MDGs-consistent national plan. The top-ranked factorsare:nationalneedsassessment(62.5%),assessmentof fiscalspaceavailableforfinanc-ing the MDGs – 12.5%, ten-year planning framework (37.5%), MDGs sector plans – 37.5%,

14

MDGs-based sector strategies – 62.5%, MDGs-based macroeconomic framework – 37.5%.

5.5 Macroeconomic Frameworks, Fiscal Policy and MDGs-based Planning: The Cases of Needs-1 and Needs-2

Macroeconomicandfiscalframeworksarecriticalsignpostsof nationalpovertyreductionstrategyor development plan (Klugman, 2002b). As an integral feature of MDGs-based strategy, MDGs-consistent macroeconomic framework should form the basis of national budgets and expendi-tureframeworks.Amacroeconomicframeworkidentifieshowpublicexpendituresandrevenuesrelate to key macroeconomic variables, such as GDP growth, national savings rates, private invest-ment,inflationandcurrentaccountbalances(UNMillenniumProject,2005b).Withinthecon-text of MDGs-based strategies, the macroeconomic framework is a valuable planning tool. With the macro-framework, planners can evaluate how growth arising from scaled-up MDGs public investmentswillimpactonpoverty-reductionaswellasprojectkeyfiscalvariablesthatdeterminedomestic resourcemobilizationandMDGsfinancingstrategy.Also,macroeconomicframe-workscanforecasttheimpactof scaled-upMDGsspendingoninflationandrealexchangerates.

Under NEEDS-1, alignment of public spending with MDGs hinged upon predetermined mac-roeconomicandfiscalframework.ThisisnotconsistentwiththeidealMDGs-basedplanningwhichinvolvesworkingbackwardsfromtheMDGs2015targetstodefiningtherequiredpolicies,interventions and investments, the process provides credible up-front quantitative cost guides for macroeconomicframeworkandfinancingstrategy.About62.5%of therespondentsindicatedthat NEEDS-1 was not based on a MDGs-consistent macroeconomic framework. This observa-tion is consistent with hard evidence from evaluation of the process and content of NEEDS-1. Medium-term sector strategies and medium-term expenditure frameworks were situated within the macroeconomic framework espoused in Fiscal Strategy Paper 2005. In addition, the sig-nificantpublicfinancemanagementreformsadoptedunderNEEDS-1includetheestablish-mentof oilprice-basedfiscalruleandcreationof astabilizationfundforexcessrevenuefromcrude oil sales (known currently as Excess Crude Account), Fiscal Responsibility Act and the establishment of Virtual Poverty Fund, known as the Oversight of Public Expenditures on NEEDS (OPEN) using the Debt Relief Gains (DRGs). So far, there have been three succes-sive Fiscal Strategy Papers including 2005-2007, 2008-2010 and 2010-2012. Nigeria’s Fiscal StrategyPapers(FSPs)setoverallfiscalobjectivesandthepoliciestoachievetheseobjectivesincluding MDGs. It outlines a medium-term expenditure plan (MTEP), primarily concerned about how spending is allocated amongst spending MDA, statutory transfers and debt service overa3-yearperiod.FSPsoutlinereviewsof fiscalandmacroeconomicperformance12 in the precedingperiods andpreviews the referenceperiod.Also, theymirrormedium-termfiscaloutlook including aggregate public revenues, aggregate spending and borrowings or savings, aswellasdefineprinciplesof quantitativeresourceallocationsacrosssectors.Startingfromthe 2005 FSP, government adopted several principles notably average sustainable price of oil (oilprice-basedfiscalrule),budgetdeficitof notmorethan3%of nominalGDP,deficitfi-

12. For example, it was recognised that by 2003, up to 36% of government revenues were used for debt ser-vicing and national public debt was about 79% of GDP. From 1999-2003, government budget deficits av-eraged 4.6% of GDP. Also during the period, annual growth in real GDP averaged about 3% while an-nual population growth was 2.8%, indicating that growth per capita was stagnant. The stock of external debts was US$ 32.9 billion as at 1 January 2004, with annual interest accrual of about US$ 1.4 billion.

��

nancing not dependent upon borrowings from the Central Bank,13 envelope-based spending and allocation of up to two thirds of capital budget to the priority (including MDGs) sectors.

With the framework of the Fiscal Strategy Paper, medium-term sector strategies and medi-um-term expenditure frameworks were adopted as planning tools for achieving the sector-level dimensions of NEEDS. Accordingly, the MTSS/MTEF process commenced during the 2005/2006 period. By the MTSS framework, projects within the budget ceiling of the Ministry are enumerated and key performance indicators developed for them. For example, beginning from 2005, MTSS/MTEF was prepared for health, education, agriculture, water resources and environment sectors/ministries, though in variable time sequence. The MTSS refers to hierarchies of goals, indicators and targets both from the MDGs framework and the NEEDS agenda in relation to the sector policy context. The MTSS of the Federal Min-istry of Agriculture sets the broad sector context while linking its seven goals to MDGs and NEEDS.Specifically,theMTSSintegratesMDGs1,7&8andsetskeyperformanceindicators(KPIs) as basis to monitor and evaluate progress. In the case of the Federal Ministry of Health, the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 MTSS integrate the health-related MDGs, giving detailed tar-gets and concrete performance indicators. Similarly, like the preceding MTSS (2006-2008), the FederalMinistryof Education’sdraftMTSS(2007-2009) incorporatesfiverelevantMDGs14 within an 8-goals framework. In addition to organizing the 2007 budget along the MTSS pri-orities, attempts15 are made to link projects with output and outcomes through key perfor-mance indicators (KPIs) with statements regarding how and when the KPIs will be measured.

Alltherespondents(100%)indicatethattherehavebeenbudgetprocessreformstoimprovetheeffi-ciencyof publicsectorfinancialmanagementandpublicspending.About70%of therespondentssay the country has a medium-term budget framework or medium-term expenditure framework.

Bolstering MDGs Spending through Debt Relief Gains (DRGs): Under NEEDS-1 and in line with the Fiscal Strategy Paper 2005, Nigeria negotiated debt relief from Paris Club of creditors, worth US$18 billion, in September 2005. The deal released roughly US$1 bil-lion or N100 billion per year (otherwise referred to as the debt relief gains) for spending by the Nigerian Government. It was agreed that debt relief gains will be channeled, on an annualbasis, topro-poor spending foraccelerating theachievementof MDGs.Specifically,the Federal Government committed to spending its share, that is, $0.75billion, for MDGs, based on implementation strategy tagged the Overview of Public Expenditure in NEEDS (OPEN), Nigeria’s equivalent of Virtual Poverty Fund (VPF). The VPF is a coding system within an existing budget classification structure that designates specific resources towardspro-poor projects and enables the tagging and tracking of such poverty-reducing spend-ing. The OPEN initiative was based on a number of core principles: the debt relief funds as primarily catalyst for broader public expenditure reforms, given the fact that it con-stitutes a marginal portion of total government spending and also as key driver of results-13. Expenditure envelopes impose spending ceilings within which government and its MDAs must op-erate. Within their respective ceilings, MDAs must cater for their personnel costs, overheads and capi-tal expenditure. By this constraint, MDAs are compelled to prioritize resource allocation in order to achieve a right balance amongst competing needs, in line with criteria stipulated by the Budget Office.14. They include: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and develop a global partnership for development.15. Despite the attempts, the MTSS has been criticised as not having consistent array of linkages between activity, output and outcome. Because the links to outcome are not fully developed, the usefulness as M & E tool is limited.

16

based monitoring and evaluation framework for expenditure tracking and impact assessment.

The debt relief fund was expected to provide an additional 5% of government expenditure for MDGs. Under the OPEN initiative, government adopted measures for tracking the ef-ficiencyandeffectivenessof DRGsforMDGs-relatedexpenditure.Accordingly, thefederalgovernment, in 2005, adopted the integrated accounting system16 to tag, track and monitor DRGs spending for MDGs, coinciding with the rolling out of the MTEF and MTSS pro-cesses, also during 2005. The DRGs cover 10 MDGs-related sub-heads: Health, Education, Water Resources, Power and Steel, Works, Agriculture, Environment, Women Affairs, Youth, Housing and Urban Development. The spending of DRGs takes place along two chan-nels: Federal Government MDAs and State Governments (that is, the Conditional Grants Scheme. The DRGs spending by Federal Government MDAs is given as follows (Table 2).

In terms of context, process and content, NEEDS-1 did not conform to MDGs-based plan-ning.Despiteevidentattemptsmade toprioritiseMDGs in the federalgovernment’sfiscal,budget and policy arenas, NEEDS-1 lacked the integral ingredients of systematic MDGs-based planning. The missing ingredients include deliberate long-term planning outlook for MDGs2015targets,adequateparticipatoryprocesses,MDGs-basedmacroeconomicandfis-cal frameworks, MDGs needs assessment (costing) for investment planning and budgeting. It was expected that NEEDS-2 would learn from the MDGs pitfalls of NEEDS-1. But, the prospect of NEEDS-2 in tackling these gaps was diminished by the lack of MDGs-oriented evaluation of NEEDS-1, lack of political support for NEEDS-2 and the poor connections between the NEEDS-1 and the Seven-Point Agenda (which eventually succeeded NEEDS-1).Table 2: Actual Spending of Debt Relief Gains (N billion) 2006-2008S/N AGENCY 2006 2007 20081 Health 20.2

(10.2)16.06(7.4)

22.80(11.7)

2 Agriculture and Water (2006 For Water only) 16.5 0.85 15.503 Education 15.00

(9.9)9.7(4.7)

8.50(3.9)

4 Environment 1.10 - 1.605 Housing 0.30 1.30 0.816 Power & Steel 6.90 3.007 National Poverty Eradication Programme

(NAPEP)- 8.00 4.00

8 FCT 0.869 Monitoring and Evaluation 1.10 1.70 1.50

Figures in parentheses show DRG expenditures as % of total sector budget of the federal government.

Table 2 shows that DRG expenditures have been generally more intensive in the health sector. By this pattern, the DRG spending seems to be responding to the greater challenge of meeting the national health-related MDGs targets.16. Beginning from the 2006, theOffice of theAccountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) adapted theChart of Accounts to classify DRGs-funded MDGs line items. The Chart of Accounts is a series of codes that provide a unique label for every project, programme or allocation in the federal budget. The code of every project or programme funded by debt relief gains contains the digits 3500-3599 or 4500-4599.

��

Ontheotherhand,theDRGsdisbursementtoStateGovernmentsforqualifiedMDGsproj-ects is given in Table 3 as follows.

Table 3: Total Project Value of MDGs Conditional Grants Scheme Initiatives 2007-2009State 2007 2008* 2009*Abia 290,000,000 1,735,144,020 1,959,037,070Adamawa 267,700,000 950,487,450 501,249,076Akwa Ibom 411,594,706 1,695,000,000Anambra 1,795,200,000 1,691,780,940 1,819,756,999Bauchi 1,000,000,000 1,909,000,000 1,686,328,387Bayelsa 1,586,161,314 1,603,133,363Benue - 1,801,246,295Borno 1,135,347,926 455,906,900Cross River 1,407,500,000 - 1,989,490,000Delta 1,890,538,106 1,612,119,750Ebonyi - 951,269,823Edo 732,800,000 1,817,988,440 -Ekiti 2,054,300,000 1,749,999,916 -Enugu 762,827,000 1,727,104,405FCT 1,708,900,000 1,586,262,454 -Gombe 698,200,000 1,909,665,272 1,287,370,456Imo 1,969,515,636 1,924,165,292Jigawa 775,700,000 1,814,156,000 1,940,127,000Kaduna 535,480,000 1,971,080,348 1,699,820,678Kano 1,069,300,000 1,249,500,000 1,934,377,042Katsina 648,000,000 1,836,558,924 1,977,876,402Kebbi 1,640,437,300 1,448,565,300Kogi 817,098,188 1,123,090,779Kwara 1,468,650,858 1,599,960,000Lagos 700,900,000 1,129,288,064 -Nasarawa 638,700,000 999,969,850 -Niger 1,004,580,938 1,813,065,416Ogun 1,641,565,000 -Ondo 508,000,000 663,000,000 248,068,029Osun 638,685,250 1,667,412,763Oyo 1,882,593,696 850,198,641Plateau 955,810,600 1,793,485,400Rivers 1,807,800,000 626,340,000Sokoto 822,926,600 605,989,027Taraba 1,878,400,000 1,619,100,560 1,564,529,258Yobe 489,700,000 1,770,913,080 753,715,160Zamfara 1,216,000,000 1,957,814,132 515,159,006Totals 18,414,780,000 48,797,842,568 43,174,957,717

*For 2008 and 2009, States are required to provide counterpart funding. Therefore the amounts listed are made up of 50% State contribution and 50% Federal Grant. For 2007, the amounts are all Federal Grants.

18

6.0 Impact Of Federal Setting and Subnational Authorities on MDGs and MDGs-based Planning: Insights from Nigeria’s Experience

6.1 Concept vs Practice of “National Plan” in a Federal Setting

Ideally, a national development plan (NDP) should be an embodiment of strategic pri-orities, policy thrusts and implementable programmes and projects for achieving predeter-mined national vision, goals and objectives. A national development plan should be truly “national”, politically in process and technically in content (Klugman, 2005a). By process, it is meant that the national development plan should have political ownership through effec-tive participation and commitment of all stakeholders. By content, it is meant that the na-tional development plan should be a comprehensive integrated framework of strategies, pro-grammes and projects covering the entire country (see UN Millennium Project, 2005a; 2005b).

In a unitary States, subnational authorities (for example, provincial and local) are, to a large extent, mere administrative or political extensions/appendages of the cen-tral government. As such, national development plan can be simply articulated by the central government, through participatory and consultative processes involving among others, lower administrative jurisdictions. So, in concept and reality, the “pro-cess” and “content” character of the national development plan are less complicated.

But, in federal States, like Nigeria, subnational jurisdictions (particularly, state govern-ments) have significant autonomy in budget and fiscal management and developmentpolicymaking. As such, the process of preparing a national development plan is nei-ther simplistic nor straightforward. In ideal circumstances, a Nigerian national develop-ment planning should be anchored on intergovernmental bottom-up architecture. In content, the national development plan should not just be a mere aggregation or consolida-tion of the plans prepared by the Federal and all State Governments. Rather, it should be a synergistic synthesis17 of development plans of the Federal and all State Governments.

In practice, however, Nigeria’s NDPs have to a large extent been prepared by the Federal Gov-ernment, with variable participation by State Governments. This is not surprising. Most of Nigeria’s past NDPs were prepared under military governments which governed the country in the manner of unitary States. Under the setting, State Governments were mere append-agesof theFederalMilitaryGovernment.ThoughNEEDSrepresentsasignificantattemptatgetting a truly national PRS for Nigeria, the SEEDS (state-level PRS blueprint) were just de-

17. A national development plan does not necessarily mean a single document, in a physical sense. The con-tent can take various forms; it could have several interconnected components in separate documents. But, to be truly national, planning should be conducted through a single unified coordinated process. InNigeria,the process of development planning appears to be more critical for assessing whether the plan is truly na-tional, rather than the physical form of the national plan. National development planning should, in the Nigeria setting, be realised through bottom-up architecture (that is, effective mobilization and partici-pation of subnational governments). The result will be synergistic and harmonious content that embod-ies state and federal governments’ plans. To realise a national plan, therefore, the plans of the federal gov-ernment and those of all the state governments do not necessarily have to appear as a single document.

��

rivatives/offshoots, rather than foundations/building blocks of the national blueprint. In both process and content, NEEDS lacked the essential bottom-up planning architecture that should underpin the NDP process in federal setting like Nigeria. Current national development plan-ning processes including the Vision 2020 and Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan 2010-2013 have however attempted to overcome this bottom-up approach. The Vision 2020 blueprint has been prepared based on synthesis of Vision 2020 reports by the various States18 of the country. In similar vein, the process of formulating the Vision 2020 1st Implementation Plan 2010-2013reflectsattemptinbottom-topapproach.However,the‘theoreticalideal’wherebythe national plan is the culminated synergy of Federal and State Governments’ plans is, in real-ity, constrained by institutional weaknesses, particularly in inter-governmental coordination.

6.2 Policy Decentralisation and MDGs: The Nigeria Experience

Given its federal setting, Nigeria is characterized by policy decentralization. State Gov-ernments operate within constitutionally determined autonomous policy spheres in re-lation to the federal government. Considerable literature emphasizes political and eco-nomic arguments for fiscal federalism. Political arguments often relate to the merits of dealing with heterogeneity (e.g. multiple ethnic nationalities and regional differentiation) within countries and the imperative of accountable, responsive and effective governance. Ontheotherhand,economicrationaleisusuallybasedontheneedtostreamlinefiscalsta-bilisation, distribution and allocation responsibilities and policies (Musgrave and Musgrave, 1984) and to promote equitable and efficient use of public resources (Alade et al., 2003).

Policy-and-fiscaldecentralizationposesmajorchallengesforcoordinationbetweenthecentraland subnational governments. The actions and/or inactions of the Federal and State Govern-ments may directly or indirectly affect the subnational governments and vice versa (Ajakaiye, 2008). The sharing/exercise of revenue and spending powers and responsibilities are prone to tensionsorconflictsthatcouldbecounter-productive.TheNigeriaexampleisinstructive.Fiscaldecentralisation allows autonomy for State and Local governments to decide expenditures for providing public services. Moreover, more than half of consolidated public spending (including forMDGs)isaccountedforbystatesandlocalgovernments.But,overtheyears,thelackof fiscalcoordination between the central and subnational authorities tended to undermine sound pub-lic spending, macroeconomic stability and sustainable economic growth. It is often argued that there is lack of correspondence between the spending responsibilities and tax powers/revenue sources assigned to the different levels of government (Ajakaiye, 2008; Ekpo and Englama, 2008).

As a federation comprising the federal government, 36 state governments, federal capi-tal territory (FCT) and 774 local governments, Nigeria has 812 distinct political jurisdic-tions, which are tantamount to 812 politico-economic decision-making centres. The Nige-rian Constitution 1999 allocates roles and responsibilities across the federal, state and local governments. The Exclusive List contains the functions reserved for the Federal Govern-ment only. On the Concurrent List, both the Federal and State governments could func-tion, however, when there is a conflict, the Federal Government shall prevail. The func-tions reserved for the states are found in the Residual List; they are functions not assigned

18. State Governments set up Stakeholder Development Committees to articulate and formu-late their respective Vision 2020 drafts which formed inputs for the National Vision 2020 blueprint.

20

to Local Governments and neither contained in the Exclusive and Concurrent Lists. Many public services bearing on the MDGs (for example, health, education, agriculture, environ-ment), are statutorily concurrent responsibilities of the federal, state and local governments.

Public services which impact on the MDGs are the concurrent responsibilities of the Federal, State and Local Governments. The public services include education, health, water and elec-tricity infrastructure, poverty alleviation, social security and economic development. Given the preoccupation of the federal government with universal issues like defence, security, foreign af-fairs, currency management, immigration, export and import trade regulations and macroeco-nomic policies, the balance of the challenges of MDGs such as education, health and poverty reduction tilts to the subnational governments. The situation raises the risks of policy overlap-ping and wasteful expenditure duplication, if there is no strong intergovernmental coordina-tion. Some national policy reviews have shown that state governments lag behind in policy and institutional reforms for promoting the MDGs. Despite recent examples of the federal govern-ment, many State Governments still lack strong institutional framework needed to effectively mobilise and utilise public resources and to enhance public service delivery for the MDGs.

Policy-fiscaldecentralizationhasdouble-edgedimplicationsfortheachievementof MDGsinfederalsettings.Thiscounteractingnatureof theimplicationsisexemplifiedbythefactthatNigeria’s federal setting poses both opportunities and challenges for achieving the MDGs.. Achieving the MDGs can be hindered or accelerated depending upon policy synergy and com-plementaritybetweentheFederal,StateandLocalGovernments.Ontheonehand,fiscaldecen-tralization enhances the powers, responsibilities and abilities of subnational jurisdictions (State and Local Governments) to provide basic social and economic services (including MDGs) to the grassroots. Because Nigeria’s State and Local Governments ideally should be closest to the people and more easily held accountable for providing basic public services, their actions or inactions impact greatly impact on the MDGs. On the other hand, the autonomy enjoyed by the State and Local Governments increases the risks of coordination problems in planning and policydevelopment.Withoutcorrespondinglevelsof goodgovernance,fiscalaccountabilityand policy responsibility at the state level, decentralisation per se will not effectively promote the achievement of the MDGs. Governance capacity, institutional coordination and effective service deliveryarethereforecrucialif stategovernmentsaretosignificantlyacceleratethemarchtothe MDGs. MDGs-oriented reforms of the federal government could be compromised by lack of corresponding/complementing policies and programmes at the state and local levels. But, it is doubtful that these preconditions are currently evident in the present Nigerian situation.

6.3 Subnational Jurisdictions and MDGs Spending

Like other countries practicing fiscal federalism, Nigeria is characterized by the distribu-tion of revenue powers and spending responsibilities among the Federal, State and Lo-calGovernments. Currently, subnational (state and local) governments account for signifi-cant chunk of public spending in Nigeria. The share of sub-national budget spending in

2�

the consolidated public spending increased from 23 percent in 1999 to 46 percent in 2005 (World Bank, 2007). Moreover, estimates show that sub-national budget spending in 2005 was almost four times higher in real terms than the 1999 level. According to some statistics on inter-governmentalfiscal relations,19 State and Local Governments together, on the aver-age, accounted for 52.34% of total annual public expenditure within the period 2003-2007. In 2008, the States and Local Governments’ share rose to 57.6% of total public spending. On the average, State and Local Governments together, accounted for 59.97% of total annual capital spending and 48.24% of total annual recurrent spending from 2003-2007. At the sec-tor level, State Governments alone accounted for 53.88% and 51.76% of total public spend-ing on education and health from 2003-2007. Further details are given in Table 4 as follows.

Table 4: Relative Size of Education and Health Expenditures of Federal and State GovernmentsExpenditure type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003-2007

average Capital and recurrent expenditure on education by all governments

181.09 200.36 271.22 328.8 369.45 270.184

Federal Government share (N’ bil-lion)

79.5 85.6 114.7 151.7 205.2 127.34

Federal Government share (%) 43.90 42.72 42.29 46.14 55.54 46.12State Governments’ share (N’ billion) 101.59 114.76 156.52 177.1 164.25 142.844State Governments’ share (%) 56.10 57.28 57.71 53.86 44.46 53.88Capital and recurrent expenditure on health by all governments

91.92 119.56 169.08 197.33 217.27 159.032

Federal Government share (N’ bil-lion)

39.7 52.4 77.5 94.5 131.4 79.1

Federal Government share (%) 43.19 43.83 45.84 47.89 60.48 48.24State Governments’ share (N’ billion) 52.22 67.16 91.58 102.83 85.87 79.932State Governments’ share (%) 56.81 56.17 54.16 52.11 39.52 51.76

Source: Central Bank of Nigeria Annual Reports, 2003-2007

Table 4 shows decrease in State Governments’ share of total health and education spend-ing from 2005-2007. The trend is linked to the increased proportion of federal govern-ment in total health and education spending, largely on account of the OPEN initia-tive. For instance, the OPEN initiative reined in additional federal government MDGs spending of about N99.91 billion and N109.47 billion in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

In spite of the boost to federal government MDGs spending since the start of the OPEN initiative, the subnational (state and local) governments remain very cru-cial, as revealed by the relative shares of Federal, State and Local Governments in aggregate national public spending from 2003-2007, as given in Appendix III.

The impact of subnational governments would even be greater if the expenditures of local governments on education and health are taken into account.20But,whilefiscaldecentraliza-

19. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ending 31st December 2007.20. The expenditures of local governments were not included due to paucity of data. The data problem is symp-tomaticof severefiscalcapacitygapsinthelocalgovernmentsystem.Also,therearespendingdistortionsaris-ing from variable spending relations between state governments and their constituent local governments.

22

tion has enhanced the funds available for state governments to deliver public services, the gains for MDGs are largely muted. This is because increased availability of budgetary resources and public spending by state governments has not translated into better service delivery and hu-man development (World Bank, 2007).21 No doubt, achievement of the MDGs 2015 targets willrequireenhancedcostefficiencyof expendituresatalllevelsof government.But,thechal-lenge of improving the quality of budget expenditure is more acute at the state level due to additionalcapacityconstraintsandslowerprogressof publicfinancialmanagementreforms.

6.4 Localisation of MDGs: The Role of Subnational Jurisdictions Using the Seeds-leeds Example

Need for localization of MDGs: Localizing MDGs-based planning is an important precondition for the national achievement of MDGs targets. The localization of MDGs is a logical imperative of policyandfiscaldecentralization.Moreover,thehighlevelsof variabilityinMDGs-relatedin-dicators across Nigerian States provide legitimate grounds for localised plans that domesticate the global MDGs targets. The variability of MDGs status and related indicators across Nigerian states is given in Appendix IV. The regional dimensions of the variability are given in Table 5, as follows:

21. World Bank, (2007). Nigeria: A Fiscal Agenda for Change – Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review. Abuja

2�

Table 5: MDGs-Related Indicators Across Nigeria’s Six Geopolitical Regions22 MDGs indicator Geopolitical zone

North-West

North-East

North-Central

South-West

South-South

South-East

One dollar per day poverty (%) 61.2 64.8 58.6 40.2 47.6 31.2Relative poverty (% ) 71.2 72.2 67.0 42.0 35.1 26.7Inequality (Gini index - %) 38.9 39.8 46.1 40.6 39.4 38.7Percentage of women aged 15-24 years that are literate, 2007

21.2 8.7 55.6 87.4 81.0 87.5

Gender parity index for primary school – ratio of girls to boys – net attendance ratio, 2007

0.82 0.84 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99

Gender parity index for secondary school – ratio of girls to boys – net attendance ratio, 2007

0.68 0.71 0.90 0.98 1.03 1.02

Net primary school completion rate 17.6 6.4 41.0 59.7 62.1 49.8Percentage who reach grade 5 of those who enter 1st grade, 2007

93.8 89.0 94.4 98.0 96.9 96.7

Secondary school net attendance ratio - % of children of secondary school age attending secondary or higher school, 2007.

30.1 8.1 58.7 78.3 72.3 69.8

Primary school net attendance ratio for girls

43.5 12.5 82.8 97.0 95.8 95.7

Secondary school net attendance ratio for girls

23.8 6.6 55.6 77.4 73.4 70.4

% of women delivered in health facility

9.1 16.4 41.9 73.0 51.3 74.9

Vaccination coverage for 1-year old 13.6 21.1 19.8 50.6 38.7 54.6% of children aged 12-23 months currently vaccinated against child-hood diseases, 2007

3.2 1.0 28.9 36.3 20.8 20.4

Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births)

101 96 74 64 71 88

Under five mortality rate (per 1000 live births)

166 157 117 99 111 142

HIV prevalence rate 3.5 4.3 6.1 2.6 5.3 4.7% of household using improved sources of drinking water

42.5 27.3 42.2 72.7 54.1 54.1

% of household using sanitary means of excreta disposal

34.1 34.4 29.6 55.0 54.3 55.5

Source:DerivedfromNBSMICS,CWIQ,PovertyProfileof Nigeria,MDGsReports.

As shown in Table 5, poverty incidence is 31% in the southeast compared to 72% in North-East zone. Literacy rate of females between 15-24 years old is 8.7% in North-West zone, compared to 87% in the South-West zone. Infant mortality rate is 101 per 1000 in North-West zone compared to 64 per 1000 in South-West zone. Primary school net attendance ratio for girls is 12% in northeast compared to 95% in South-South zone. The high regional dispar-ity in MDGs and related indicators underscores two lessons. One is that a simplistic aggre-22. Sources: Nigeria Poverty Assessment, 2007. National Bureau of Statistics and the World Bank. December 2007; Core Welfare Indicator (CWIQ) Survey, 2006. National Bureau of Statistics and Epidemological Fact Sheet on HIV and AIDS: 2008 Update. WHO, UNIAIDS, UNICEF.

24

gate picture of progress towards the national MDGs targets could be misleading. Two is that there is large scope for subnational (regional and state-level) MDGs-based planning and imple-mentation not just for achieving the national MDGs targets, but also in an inclusive manner.

MDGs in State Governments’ Medium-term Plans: Since 2004, State governments have for-mulated/implemented MDGs-oriented plans/policies, otherwise called the State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies (SEEDS). In line with NEEDS, sub-national governments (state and local governments) were encouraged to develop their MDGs-based medium-term plans – SEEDS for state governments and LEEDS for local governments. Conscious of Nigeria’s federal setting, SEEDS was conceived as derivatives or comple-ments, rather than as subsets of the federal plan – the NEEDS. The process was launched at the Joint Planning Board (JPB) in 2003. A SEEDS manual was produced in early 2004 to guide state governments in preparing SEEDS blueprints. By 2005, every state govern-ment had either prepared or was completing the preparation of the SEEDS document.

State and Local Governments were given technical assistance and capacity building for the preparation of their respective SEEDS and LEEDS documents. State governments retained the autonomy to determine their development priorities and economic policies within the context of unifying guiding framework developed by the federal government.23 The ratio-nale was that NEEDS will have have limited impact if state and local governments (who play dominant roles in poverty reduction and public service delivery) fail to adopt correspond-ing MDGs-oriented economic plans that complement federal-level efforts. The SEEDS process represented a bold step towards localization of MDGs and fostering national con-sensus as well as intergovernmental coordination and synergy in development planning.

All respondents (100%) indicated that there is awareness of the MDGs at the sub-nation-al levels and that sub-national governments have their own development plans. In the same vein, 100% of the respondents stated that they agreed that the national development strat-egy is framed by constitutional division of “policy formulation responsibility”, “revenue or tax jurisdictions” and “spending responsibilities” across national and sub-national govern-ments. All the respondents indicated that the sub-national plans are MDGs-consistent.

7.0 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Of MDGs

7.1 MDGS Monitoring & Evaluation is Crucial

In order to assess if a national poverty reduction strategy or national development plan is ef-fective for achieving the MDGs, it is necessary to establish systems to monitor progress and evaluate outcomes and impacts against outputs and inputs. Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) is vital for ensuring accountability, transparency and effectiveness of poverty reducing and MDGs spending. The function of M & E is to track key indicators over time and space and to ascertain if they change as a result of the national poverty reduction strategy or national development plan (Klugman, 2005a). Also, impact evaluations are needed to inform policy-makers and stakeholders on which interventions and programmes have been effective and

23. Though SEEDS is offshoot, not subset of NEEDS, it retains the NEEDS framework

2�

which ones have not worked so well. Evidence from impact evaluations are useful for assess-ing the changes in well-being that can be attributed to a particular policy or programme. Also, impact evaluations provide decision guides for prioritizing public interventions, that is, wheth-er to expand, modify or discontinue a particular policy or programme (World Bank, 2002).

7.2 The National Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) System

Existing institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of national development plan are diverse, disparate and poorly linked to one another.24 Though the National Planning Com-mission has the statutory mandate for economy-wide coordination, monitoring and evaluation of plans and policies, federal government ministries and extra-ministerial agencies also carry out separate monitoring and evaluation activities, through their respective Departments of Plan-ning,ResearchandStatistics.Thestudydidnotfindanyevidenceof organizedM&Elinkagesbetween National Planning Commission and M & E departments in sector Ministries, Budget Officeof theFederation,NationalPovertyEradicationProgrammeandmanyotheragencies.25 There is weak horizontal linkage of monitoring and evaluation across MDAs as well as poor ver-tical coordination of M & E between federal, state and local governments. M & E information hardly feeds into policymaking and budget formulation because of many drawbacks (see Haden et al., 2007). M & E information are often in arrears, inadequate and of poor quality. Generally, M & E is accorded low institutional status across MDAs and the entire government system. Many MDAs do not have clear-cut separate budget for M & E functions. The bulk of M & E staff of MDAs does not have the appropriate training and expertise. Staff motivation is undermined by under-funding and under-utilisation of M & E information. Moreover, the generally low mu-tual accountability between the government and the people weakens the reciprocal demand for performance information. Besides, current M & E merely focuses on reporting inputs (expen-diture/resource use) and outputs (goods and services produced). There is very little or no at-tention to evaluation of outcomes (access to goods and services) and impacts (change in living conditions brought about by policies and interventions). This was the M & E landscape under which NEEDS-1/NEEDS-2 was prepared. For example, one of the factors that hindered the setting of NEEDS-1 targets was the paucity of baseline data on key human development indica-tors. Because of lack of reliable data,26 some targets were not determined a priori in NEEDS-1.

7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements Under Needs 1 & 2

Apparently, in order to overcome the weaknesses of existing national M & E framework, NEEDS-1 provided for the Independent Monitoring Committee (IMC) at the federal and state levels. The federal level committee was to be chaired by the Secretary to the Government of theFederationandcomprisinggovernmentofficials,withrepresentativesof privatesectorand civil society. Each State government was expected to establish similar committee, with the Secretary to the State Government as Chair. In addition, a National Joint Monitoring Commit-tee for SEEDS was to be established with membership of National Council on Development 24. NPC. (2007). NEEDS-2 Draft 2008-2011 Creating Prosperity through Growth.25. At the federal level, they include the Ministry of Finance, respective MDAs, the Budget Monitoring and Price IntelligenceUnitof thePresidency,theOfficeof theSecretarytotheGovernmentof theFederation,theNa-tionalPovertyEradicationProgramme(NAPEP),Officeof theAuditorGeneralof theFederationandtheOf-ficeof theAccountantGeneralof theFederationaswellasOversightCommitteesof theNationalAssembly.26.ThetargetsfortheseMDGsindicatorswerenotconclusivelydefinedthroughouttheperiodof preparationof the NEEDS. As at the time of preparing the NEEDS from 2003-2004, the available poverty data was for 1996.

26

Planning and Joint Planning Board, comprising all Commissioners of Planning and Perma-nent Secretaries in Planning Ministries. An M & E framework for measuring performance of NEEDS was to be developed by August 2004. But, these mechanisms were never actual-ized: the IMCs at the federal and state level were never constituted and the M & E template was never developed. Consequently, the subsequent economic strategies (NEEDS-2, 7-point Agenda or National Development Plan) did not have any credible and adequate evaluative bases to learn from. But, the Joint Planning Board (JPB)/National Council on Development Planning (NCDP) has provided convenient platform for peer review and information sharing with regard to performance of the States under the SEEDS. It is within the framework of the JPB/NCDP that the NPC, with support from International Development Partners (IDPs), un-dertook benchmarking (performance assessment) of SEEDS, consecutively in 2005 and 2006.

Though not implemented also, NEEDS-2 provided for reforms in the national M & E system. The NEEDS-2 M & E policy thrusts cover wide range of imperatives. They include the adop-tion of results-based M & E framework, rationalization and streamlining of M & E roles and responsibilities across MDAs for better coordination and synergy, strengthening of MDAs’ De-partments of Planning, Research and Statistics and the National Bureau of Statistics. Other as-pects of NEEDS-2 M & E policy are greater stakeholder participation for M & E credibility and acceptability, core national indicators and targets which integrate the MDGs, information prod-ucts/reports and communication and dissemination plan (NPC, 2007). But, these policy thrusts endedasmereideasbecauseNEEDS-2wasneverofficiallyadoptedasgovernmentprogramme.

Though government failed to implement the NEEDS-based M & E system, it became inevi-table to establish special M & E facility for MDGs under the OPEN (Virtual Poverty Fund) initiative. The VPF is usually dependent on the quality of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. Under the arrangement, the highest level is the Presidential Commit-tee on the MDGs chaired by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, with OSSAP-MDGs as Secretariat. The OSSAP-MDGs was created to coordinate and monitor MDGs spending/interventions under the OPEN initiative which embodies the Virtual Poverty Fund (VPF).27From theM&Eperspective, theOPEN initiative represents a significant step insetting objective and reliable basis for expenditure tracking and results benchmarking.28 In dis-charging its functions and responsibilities, OSSAP-MDGs has working relations with the rel-evant MDAs through the MDGs Technical Advisory Committee (MDGs TAC), chaired by the SSAP-MDGs and comprises representatives of NPC and relevant MDAs (e.g. MDGs Desk Officers).BecausetheOPENinitiativewasconfrontedwithsystemicshortcomingsinexistingM & E systems, the OSSAP-MDGs structure for M & E was to be the platform for the restruc-turing of M & E processes at the federal level, which was considered to be “dysfunctional”. 29

Parallel to OSSAP-MDGs is the National Planning Commission (established by Law) which has statutory responsibility for national economic and development planning, coordination and

27. The OSSAP-MDGs coordinates the spending/management of debt relief gains by three programmat-ic approaches: MDGs Conditional Grants, MDGs Quick-Win and MDGs Capacity Building. As a focal point of MDGs monitoring, it is designed to promote accountability and transparency of MDGs spending.28. The expenditure tracking measures under the OPEN were intended to be extended to the entire budget in subsequent years.29. OSSAP-MDGs (2008). The Story of OPEN (Overview of Public Expenditure in NEEDS). August 2008. The Presidency, Abuja.

2�

monitoring.30 By statute also, NPC is the Secretariat of the National Economic Council, which is chaired by the Vice President of the Federal Republic and composed of all State Governors. In line with its role in MDGs coordination, NPC has MDGs Unit responsible for the publica-tion of the annual Nigeria Millennium Development Goals Report,31 with support from UNDP.

Still, within the Ministries themselves, there are Special MDGs hubs (called MDGs focal persons) wholiaisewithOSSAP-MDGsinprojectidentification,implementation,monitoringandevalu-ation. Different Ministries have varying arrangements for working with OSSAP-MDGs. For ex-ample, the Federal Ministry of Health has an MDGS Task Team (MDGs-TT) which liaises with OSSAP-MDGs and manages the Ministry’s share of the MDGs-DRG funds. Also, the Federal Ministry of Education has a two-layer arrangement: at the supervising level, the 11-member Min-isterial Task Force on MDGs, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, and at the operational level, the 29-member Task Team on MDGs, chaired by the MDGs Coordinator. Across the Ministries, the special MDGs arrangement is additional, not substitutive, to the preexisting M & E Units 32whoseactivitieshavebeencriticizedassuperficial,sporadicandunderfunded.33 But, under the OPEN, 1% of total annual spending is earmarked for independent monitoring and evaluation.

AcrosstheMinistries,thereisgenerallypoorattentiontoM&E,asreflectedinrelativelylowM&E budgets, absence of regular evaluation programming and paucity of M & E reports. The situ-ation hinders evidence-based decision making. In another vein, the Federal Ministry of Finance, specificallytheBudgetOfficeof theFederation(BOF),throughitsBudgetMonitoringandEvalu-ation Unit (BMEU), routinely monitors public spending across all sectors, including the MDGs.

While in principle, both OSSAP-MDGs and NPC are members of the Presidential Committee on MDGs, in practice, they appear as two parallel poles of MDGs M & E. By creating OSSAP-MDGs, government implicitly admitted failure of existing M & E structures to adequately address MDGs. But, the apparent bipolar arrangement is prone to coordination risks, particularly where there are no deliberate inter-agency collaboration mechanisms. However, some improvement of inter-agencycollaborationisexemplifiedbytheMDGsmonitoringarrangementbetweenOS-SAP-MDGsandNBS.Withthesupportof theOSSAP-MDGs,theNBSMDGsDeskOfficercompiles an array of relevant indicators and collates data from line Ministries for tracking pur-poses. This effort appears to be the most explicit tool for aligning monitoring system to MDGs reporting needs. When fully developed, it will provide more comprehensive scope beyond the annual Nigeria MDGs report. More improvements are needed in the institutionalization of col-laborativeM&EbyNPC,OSSAP-MDGsandMDAs(particularlytheBudgetOffice).WhileMTSS is useful MDGs M & E tool, actual performance measurement is undermined by role ambiguities34 and institutional capacity gaps. Besides, the disparity between MTSS budgetary

30. According to the National Planning Commission Decree No. 12 of 1992, the NPC shall “formulate and prepare long-term, medium-term and short-term national development plans and coordinate such plans at the federal and local government levels”. This function aligns with the objective - “to coordinate the formulation and implementa-tion of government programmes as contained in annual plans, budgets, medium-term and perspective plans at the federal, state and local government levels”.31. So far, 2004, 2005 and 2006 MDGs reports have been published.32. Every Ministry has M & E Unit (or its equivalent) in the Department of Planning, Research and Sta-tistics (DPRS). The DPRS was created through the Civil Service Reforms under Decree 43 of 1988.33. Report of Baseline Diagnostic Study of the Current MDGs Monitoring and Evaluation System in Nigeria, January 2007, prepared by Philipa Haden, George Abalu and Dane Rogers under ITAD Ltd (UK) contract with OSSAP-MDGs.34. The baseline diagnostic study of MDGs M & E found that the responsibility and incentives are not clear.

28

requirementsandactualbudgetapprovalsfurthercompromisestheM&Ebenefitsof MTSS.35

Our interviews show some level of collaboration between the NPC and OSSAP-MDGs in areas suchasnational-levelreportingandneedsassessment(costing).However,thereisinsufficientcol-laboration/coordination in other areas such as monitoring and evaluating federal government’s MDGs interventions as well as in the monitoring of MDGs activities/progress in the States. For example, the parallel reporting 36 of MDGs by National Planning Commission and OSSAP-MDGs reflectscoordinationgaps.ExistingbipolarM&Earrangementissusceptibletooverlapping,duplication and inter-agency tensions. There is therefore, a large scope for better coordination, organizedcollaborationandunifiedapproachtoM&EamongNPC,OSSAP-MDGsandMDAs.

7.4 The Challenge of Adequate, Reliable and Timely Statistics

One critical prerequisite in MDGs monitoring and evaluation is reliable and timely statistics. By statutes, the production of national statistics is the responsibility of the central statistical agen-cy – the National Bureau of Statistics. In order to align its data collection processes with the MDGs, the NBS has created a Special Desk on MDGs issues. By this facility, NBS aims to ensure data collection, analysis and reporting are responsive to the data needs for MDGs monitoring and reporting. Also, in line with the requirements of MDGs monitoring, the NBS has created a GenderOffice,aimedtoensurethatdatacollection,analysisandreportingaregendersensitive.Currently, MDGs monitoring and evaluation is based on data/statistics from three kinds of surveys – the Nigerian Living Standard Survey (NLSS), Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS). These periodic surveys provide collec-tive frame for preparing the Nigeria MDGs Reports. But, because the three surveys are executed at differenttimes,inanon-regularandindependentmanner,itisoftendifficulttocollatetheresultsina harmonious and consistent fashion. Besides, the reporting framework does not adequately ex-plore the links (similarities, consistencies and compatibilities) of results across the three surveys . 37

The NLSS covers wide range of household-level data including demography, education, health, work and employment, time use, income and expenditure/consumption, migration, housing, social capital and community participation, credit, assets and saving, price information and trans-fers/remittances. The survey seeks to provide data and statistics for quantitative measurement, monitoring and evaluating trends of poverty, incomes, expenditure and welfare. It covers the entire country – the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory. The NLSS or its previous versions (the Consumer Expenditure Surveys – CES) were carried out successively in 1980, 1985, 1996and2004.Currentpovertyprofileof Nigeriaisbasedonthe200438 results of the NLSS . 39

The CWIQ is a survey instrument designed to provide rapid monitoring of poverty and house-holdwelfare,onanongoingbasis.Itgivesaquickerandflexiblemethodformonitoringpoverty,35. The Federal Ministry of Health MTSS is an example.36. Since 2004, NPC has been publishing the Nigeria Annual MDGs Reports. But, in September 2008, the OSSAP-MDGs published the Nigeria MDGs Mid-Term Assessment Overview, without reference to any collaboration with NPC.37. The three surveys are reported separately. There is no synthesis or periodic compatibility reports that links the three reports. As a result, users of the reports are often faced with statistics that have not been subjected to “ex-ternal” consistency checks.38.The2004surveyresultshadnotbeenfinalizedpriortothepreparationof NEEDS,soNEEDSwasbasedonestimates based on the results of the 1996 results.39. NLSS poverty data is disaggregated by gender, location, state, region, occupation, age, education, household size and so on.

2�

compared to the national consumer expenditure survey which focuses on quantitative indica-tors for measuring changes in poverty and welfare. The indicators available through the CWIQ survey are of two types. One category includes indicators of living standards for the house-holds and household members - these indicators include land assets, home ownership, type of housing, fuel for cooking, ownership of selected household goods, literacy level, employment, health and nutrition. The other category includes indicators of access, utilization and satisfac-tion - these include access to clean water, primary and secondary school services, utilization of facilities by way of enrolment rates by gender, satisfaction with school and medical services. Following the successful implementation of the pilot Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey in Lagos State in 1999, the next phase covering six states was executed in 2003. Sequel to the successful conduct of the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaires (CWIQ) sur-vey in 6 states, including Abia, Cross River, Gombe, Kebbi, Osun and Plateau, in 2003, a fol-low-up survey was conducted in the same states so as to be able to monitor the developments over time. Consequently, the next round of CWIQ survey was carried out in 2004 covering the same states. Thereafter, the survey was extended to cover the entire country in 2005/6.

The MICS is a survey designed to collect and report household level data and statistics on women and child welfare, particularly relating to literacy, access to basic education, health, nutrition, se-curity and safety. This is the basis for reporting the MDGs indicators such as infant and maternal mortality, primary school enrolment and completion rates among girls and boys and so on. To date, three surveys have been reported in the MICS series. The most recent is MICS-3 completed in 2007.

Despite these efforts in data collection and reporting, there is acute shortage of data and sta-tistics for MDGs tracking and assessment. According to the OSSAP-MDGs,40 accurate data on all forty eight (48) indicators is still not available.

7.5 Preparation and Dissemination of MDGs Progress Reports

The annual Nigeria Millennium Development Goals Report, published by the Nation-al Planning Commission, with support from UNDP Nigeria, mirrors the national out-look41 of progress towards the MDGs and reviews current situation and prospects.

One major shortcoming of the MDGs M & E system is the absence of logical framework that connects outputs, outcomes and impact. On the one hand, the Nigeria MDGs Reports give progress towards the MDGs in terms of achievement of the various indicators and the gaps in relation to the 2015 targets. The MDGs Reports do not link the performance on various indicators to the amount of public spending and outputs generated. On the other hand, the budget monitoring reports (BMRs) give the amount of spending and the activi-ties/outputs realized. The BMRs neither contain the outcomes in terms of use of goods and services nor impacts on MDGs indicators. This shows a lack of connectivity of the bud-get monitoring reports and the MDGs progress reports. The situation is not helped by the fact that the M & E templates in some MTSS do not show explicitly clear linkages between MDGsinterventions,outputsandoutcomes.Hence,itisdifficulttorelateinterventionsandpublic spending (such as infrastructure development) to higher level educational outcomes. 40. OSSAP-MDGs (2008). The Story of OPEN – Overview of Public Expenditure in NEEDS. August 2008. The Presidency, Abuja.41. It does not give the subnational outlook of progress towards the MDGs.

30

Thisfindingreinforcespreviouscriticismof currentMDGsM&EsysteminNigeria.Thebaseline diagnostic study observed that the M & E system neglects42 the middle-level seg-ment of the logical results chain, that is, the outputs-outcomes link. The failure of the existing M & E framework to produce quantitative estimates of the relations between public spend-ing and MDGs outcomes constitutes a major constraint to evidence-based decision making.

Interviews with the OSSAP-MDGs confirm that there is yet no analytic model forbenchmarking expenditures against MDG indicators. It is therefore imperative to ar-ticulate nationally applicable framework that provides empirically verifiable benchmarksfor measuring MDGs interventions, through inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts.

Besides, the MDGs annual report does not contain State-level disaggregated statistics, thus obscuring wide differences in MDGs achievements and rates of progress across the States. In recent times however, there has been some improvements in collecting and documenting State-level statistics, with support from NBS. For example, the NBS trains State statistical of-ficialsforthepreparationof StateStatisticalYearBook.AccordingtotheNBSofficials,about17 States will be connected to the NBS Data Warehouse System, just as all the States are being involved for the articulation of National Strategic Plan. Data collation from the MDAs is also being enhanced through ICTs-based data supply and reporting networks underway at NBS.

ThenationalMDGsreportdoesnotshowState-leveldisaggregatedprofile.However,someStates, such as Cross River, Niger and Kano, are already developing their own reports. The replicationof theseinitiativesinotherStateswillsignificantlyimproveMDGsmonitoringandreporting at the subnational level.

7.6 Subnational Dimensions of MDGs Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

MDGs-related planning and policymaking by state governments are done within the framework of SEEDS – apparently State Governments’ equivalent of the national poverty reduction strat-egy -NEEDS. Like the relationship of NEEDS and SEEDS, MDGs monitoring, evaluation and reporting at the State level has relied heavily on cues from the Federal Government. Hence, State-level MDGs monitoring is incorporated into policy monitoring and evaluation of the SEEDS. Since 2005, there have been two successive benchmarking assessment exercises aimed at tracking the performance of the various state governments in formulating and implementing the SEEDS – apparently state governments’ equivalent of the national poverty reduction strategy -NEEDS.

The benchmarking of SEEDS (which has bearing to the achievement of MDGs) was based on a framework developed by the National Planning Commission, with inputs and reviews from state governments. The framework consisted of a set of key benchmarks by which states can be assessed.The four key performance covered by the benchmarking are policy, fiscaland budget management, service delivery and communication and transparency. Policy bench-mark examines the extent to which the state government develops, publishes and implements a strategy that advances its policy targets. Fiscal and budget management benchmark addresses performanceof thestategovernmentsinensuringresponsibleandprudentfiscalmanagement42. According to the Report, based on study conducted from September – October 2006, M & E convention-ally focus on measurement of the top and bottom of the results chain, that is, the impact, inputs and activities.

��

thateffectivelycontainsthenegativeimpactsof revenuefluctuationandtheextenttowhichithas established the budget as a comprehensive, transparent and binding tool for the implemen-tation of government priorities. The service delivery benchmark evaluates the extent to which state governments have developed and implemented strategies to improve service delivery, both in terms of quality and in terms of reach. The communication and transparency benchmark as-sesses whether policies are planned and implemented in a transparent and accountable manner.

Theassessmentrevealedconsiderableweaknessesinfiscalandbudgetmanagementacrossthestates. However, most States showed considerable increase in capital allocations to SEEDS or MDGs priorities in the 2006 budget. It was found that 18% of the states gave at least 75% of year 2006 capital budget to MDGs-relevant sectors, 47% of the states gave at least 50% and 35% gave below 50%.43 In spite of the merits of the SEEDS benchmarking exercise, it has not been repeated since the last one in 2006.Overall, the monitoring and reporting of MDGs at the subnational level appears not to be deliberate and systematic. Generally, state govern-ments lack structured MDGs progress reporting systems. In many states, the MDGs monitor-ing and reporting system has been largely driven by the need to meet the conditionality for grants from the OSSAP-MDGs, which require states to create special MDGs coordination and monitoring departments or units and to render periodic project implementation reports. The resulting periodic reporting of MDGs projects under the Conditional Grant Projects of OS-SAP-MDGs are mere administrative documentation/listing of project inputs and outputs, with little or no attention to outcomes and impacts. With exception of a handful of states, there are hardly any autonomous institutional arrangements for the MDGs monitoring and reporting.

However, few States (for example, Kano and Cross River) have attempted to develop MDGs progress report. Capacity constraints beset the process, as evidenced by paucity of relevant statistical data and shortage of capacity for MDGs data gathering and reporting. The moni-toring framework as shown by the template tracks project activities and impact indicators. Itneitherreflectslevelsof inputandoutputsnorshowlinksbetweenactivitiesandimpacts.The framework is a replica of what has been used at the national level in the three succes-sive national MDGs reports - 2004, 2005 & 2006. The absence of link between inputs, out-puts, outcomes and impact is a major shortcoming of the existing monitoring framework.

The survey questionnaire elicited the views of government officials and develop-ment practitioners on the constraints to MDGs-consistent planning and coordina-tion across the tiers of government. The responses are summarized in Table 6, as follows.

43. Source: SEEDS Benchmarking Results 2006, National Planning Commission.

32

Table 6: Respondents’ Rating of Constraints to MDGs-Consistent Planning

Constraint Frequency (%) of responses

Poor awareness of MDGs in Ministries, Departments and Agencies 25.0Poor coordination among Ministries, Departments and Agencies 100.0Weak national planning and implementation capacity 62.5Low political commitment to the MDGs 37.5Inadequate budget allocation to the MDGs 50.0Unpredictability of aid disbursement 12.5Lack of MDGs constituency in parliament 25.0Lack of coherence between national and sub-national plans 37.5Poor mobilization of the populace for the MDGs 87.5

Source: Field interviews – a total of 28 respondents

Table 6 shows that coordination of MDGs policies and programmes was mentioned as the most critical factor limiting MDGs-based planning across the three levels of govern-ment. Other major constraints are weak capacities for national planning and implemen-tation and the poor mobilization of the population for the achievement of the MDGs.

8. Conclusions and Policy Implications

8.1 Needs-1 & Needs -2 Attempted MDGs-based Planning

Sequel to the recommendations of the UN Millennium Project, the UN World Summit and Mid-Term Review of Progress towards the MDGs resolved that countries with extreme pov-erty adopt and implement MDGs-consistent or MDGs-based poverty reduction strategies/na-tional development plans by the end of 2006 if they have not done so. In the same vein, coun-tries already having poverty reduction strategies or national development plans were required to align national and sector medium-term plans with the MDGs. Against this backdrop, this study examined the alignment of Nigeria’s medium-term economic strategy (2004-2007) with the MDGs. Nigeria was midway into the implementation of her national poverty reduction strategy – the NEEDS, at the time the UN World Summit asked countries to design/implement MDGs-consistent development plans. In spite of integrating MDGs as priorities, NEEDS lacked the core elements of MDGs-based planning. But, in the light of the 2006 Resolution, Nigeria took steps to align NEEDS with MDGs-based planning, particularly through the OPEN initiative. Subsequent development planning at the national and subnational levels therefore adopted key elements of the MDGs-based framework. Real progress in MDGs-based planning has however been hampered by shortage of technical capacity, inadequate political support and lack of req-uisite coordination between the national and subnational governments. MDGs-based planning in Nigeria hinges upon collaboration between national and subnational governments and non-state actors to tackle underlying technical, organizational, management and political drawbacks.

��

8.2 The ‘Open’ Initiative was Critical Turning Point for MDGs-based Planning

Thoughthewide-rangingfiscalandinstitutionalreformsunderNEEDSwerelargelyMDG-friendly, the implementation of MDGs-consistent measures was actually driven by the successful negotiation of debt relief from the Paris Club in 2005. The deal released roughly US$1 billion or N100 billion per year (otherwise referred to as the debt relief gains) for spending by the Nigerian Government. Under the agreement, Nigeria committed to channel the savings from debt relief to MDGs spending, on an annual basis. The debt relief fund was expected to provide an additional 5% of government expenditure for MDGs. Public spending of the debt relief savings was to be coordinatedandmonitoredbyaSpecialPresidentialUnit,knownastheOfficeof theSeniorSpe-cial Assistant to the President on MDGs (OSSAP-MDGs), under the Overview of Public Spend-ing in NEEDS (OPEN), widely regarded as Nigeria’s equivalent of Virtual Poverty Fund (VPF).

Under the OPEN initiative, government adopted measures for tracking the effi-ciency and effectiveness of debt relief savings for MDGs-related expenditure. Per-haps, the OSSAP-MDGs made the largest single investment in M & E from 2006-2008, among all federal agencies. In the same vein, the federal government, in 2005, adopted the integrated accounting system to tag, track and monitor the spending of debt relief savings forMDGs.Themeasure talliedwith the rollingoutof thefiscal strategypa-per, medium term expenditure framework and medium-term sector strategies, also in 2005.

One year to the end of NEEDS (that is, 2006), the federal government commenced the process of needs assessment in line with the technical requirements of MDGs-based plan-ning. The needs assessment (costing exercise) covered the period 2006-2015 with 2006 as thebaseline.Itfocusedonthefirstseven(outof eight)MDGs,11targetsand32indicators.

8.3 Coordination, Monitoring and Reporting Systems Need Overhaul

Across theMinistries, there is generally poor attention toM&E, as reflected in relativelylow M & E budgets, absence of regular evaluation programming and paucity of M & E re-ports. The M & E units in the various Ministries are poorly organised and underfunded. The situation does not augur well for evidence-based decision making. Though government did not implement the M & E system proposed for NEEDS, it designated a special M & E for MDGs under the OPEN initiative. It was intended that the OSSAP-MDGs M & E frame-work would serve as platform for restructuring the weak M & E system at the federal level.

One major shortcoming of the MDGs M & E system is the absence of logical framework that connects outputs, outcomes and impact. On the one hand, the Nigeria MDGs Reports give prog-ress towards the MDGs in terms of achievement of the various indicators and the gaps in relation to the 2015 targets. The MDGs Reports do not link the performance on various indicators to the amount of public spending and outputs generated. On the other hand, the budget monitoring re-ports (BMRs) give the amount of spending and the activities/outputs realized. The BMRs neither contain the outcomes in terms of use of goods and services nor impacts on MDGs indicators. This shows a lack of connectivity of the budget monitoring reports and the MDGs progress reports.

34

However, the study shows some level of collaboration between the NPC and OSSAP-MDGs inMDGsreportingandneedsassessment(costing).However, insufficientcollaborationandcoordinationexist,forexample,intheidentification,monitoringandevaluationof federalgov-ernment’s MDGs interventions as well as in the monitoring of MDGs activities and progress in the States. The existing bipolar M & E arrangement is susceptible to overlapping, duplication and inter-agency rivalries. There is therefore a large scope for better coordination, organized collaborationandunifiedapproachbytheM&Eagencies includingtheNationalPlanningCommission,OSSAP-MDGs,BudgetOfficeof theFederation andMDGs-bearingMDAs.

8.4 Capacity Gaps and Policy Uncertainties Remain Critical

Capacity constraints are instrumental to the poor attempts to align the NEEDS with MDGs-based planning. The planning infrastructure of both the feder-al and state governments is weak and not sufficiently proactive. Critical shortcom-ings of the planning system include lack of adequate capacity for information process-ing, inadequate analytical skills, low rates of stakeholder mobilisation, poor political attention to the planning process, and lack of coherent links between plan and annual budgets.

Related to the capacity problem is the poor prospect of sustenance of policies and institu-tions. While OSSAP-MDGs may be currently serving important complementary functions in the coordination, monitoring and reporting of MDGs, it nevertheless remains an ad hoc administrative creation that exists at the instance of the President. Parallel to the OS-SAP-MDGs is the National Planning Commission, established by Statutes, and mandat-ed to formulate, coordinate and monitor long-term, medium-term and short-term national development plans including annual plans, budgets, medium-term and perspective plans at the federal, state and local government levels. Presently, considerable MDGs-based plan-ning and monitoring capacity resides in the OSSAP-MDGs. The diffusion of capacity from the OSSAP-MDGs to MDAs, including the NPC, raises some questions about sustainable skills location and use. Moreover, the “blind” system of staff transfer or switching with-in individual MDAs could precipitate skills mismatch and undermine capacity retention.

Capacity weaknesses also manifest in paucity of timely, adequate and reliable statistical data for MDGs monitoring and evaluation. At the time of formulating the NEEDS in 2003, a lot of data were in arrears, others lacked coherence. Also, data gaps across indicators diminish the useful-ness of Nigeria’s annual MDGs reports. While considerable improvements have been achieved since 2003 through reforms at the National Bureau of Statistics, much still needs to be done. Moreover, there is yawning need for statistical capacity building at the sub-national levels. Since both Federal and State Governments have concurrent responsibility for social and economic statistics, it is important for State Governments to develop corresponding statistical capacities in their respective jurisdictions, consistent with efforts of the National Bureau of Statistics. In order to achieve systematic array of coherent, consistent and complete statistical data over time, Nigerian statistical agencies need improved technical skills, increased institutional resources and better coordination/collaboration between national and subnational levels. In particular, the MDGsmonitoringandevaluationsystemswillbenefitimmenselyif thereisorganisedmatch-ing of statistical data from the three major national surveys – the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, Nigerian Living Standard Survey and the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire Survey.

��

8.5 Capacity Weaknesses are Acute at the Subnational Level

Though Nigeria’s subnational (state and local) governments enjoy autonomy for MDGs pub-lic spending, economic planning and sector policies, in reality, they largely depend upon the leadership of the federal government, as evidenced by existing MDGs policy frameworks and programmes. This dualistic scenario of autonomy and dependence is linked to their in-adequate capacities for policy formulation, implementation and monitoring. These capacity shortages can be linked to the fact that many states were created from existing ones with-out corresponding efforts to develop human and institutional capacities for strategic plan-ning, economic policymaking and public service delivery. Older states often display greater policy and institutional capacities, relative to younger states. Moreover, the federal govern-ment ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) seem to enjoy generally higher concen-tration of more experienced public officials, than state governments. Thus, the public ser-vice bureaucracy in many states is weaker relative to their federal government counterparts. In order to actualise their rightful roles for the achievement of the MDGs, therefore, the subnationalgovernmentswillrequiresignificantleapsinplanningandmonitoringcapabilities.

36

Bibliography

AIAE. (2003). “Nigeria: Macroeconomic Analysis and Agenda for Reforms”. Report under United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Project.

Ajakaiye, O. (2008). “Towards Securing Fiscal Policy Coordination in Nigeria.” In Collier, P, Soludo, C. C. and Pattillo, C., (eds.) Economic Policy Options for a Prosperous Nigeria, pp. 205-220. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmilan.

Alade, S. O., Ebajemita, J. O., Rapu, S. C. and Tule, M. (2003). “Fiscal Federalism and Macro-economic Governance.” In Central Bank of Nigeria Contemporary Economic Issues in Nigeria. Abuja: Central Bank of Nigeria.

Collier, P. (2008). “Oil, Growth and Governance in Nigeria”. In Collier, P., Soludo, C. C and Pattillo, C. (2008). Economic Policy for a Prosperous Nigeria. New York: Palgrave Macmil-lan, pp. 45-60.

Eboh, E. (2003). The Poverty Reduction Strategy Process in Nigeria. Addis Ababa: Economic Commission for Africa.

Ekpo, A. H. (2004). “Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations: The Nigerian Experience”. Paper presented at the 10th Anniversary of the Financial and Fiscal Commission of South Africa,

Capetown, 10-12 August 2004.

Ekpo, A. H. and Englama, A. (2008). “Fiscal Federalism in Nigeria: Issues, Challenges and Agenda for Reform.” In Collier, P., Soludo, C. C. and Pattillo, C., (Eds.) Economic Policy Options for a Prosperous Nigeria. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmilan, pp. 221-243.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1975). Third National Development Plan 1975-1980, Volume 1. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Economic Development.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1999). Economic Policy Direction for Nigeria, 1999-2003. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Information.

Haden, P, Abalu, G. and Rogers, D. (2007). “Baseline Diagnostic Study of the Current MDGs MonitoringandEvaluationSysteminNigeria”.ReportpreparedforOfficeof SeniorSpe-cial Assistant to the President on MDGs, July 2007.

Jimoh, A. (2003). “Fiscal Federalism: The Nigerian Experience”. Paper presented at the Ad-Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Policy and Growth in Africa: Fiscal Federalism, Decentrali-sation and the Incidence of Taxation, 7-9 October, UNECA, Addis Ababa.

��

Klugman, J. (2002a). (Ed.) A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies Volume1: Core Techniques and Cross-cutting Issues. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Klugman, J. (2002b). (Ed.) A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies Volume 2: Macroeconomic and Sectoral Approaches. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Musgrave, R. A. and Musgrave, P. B. (1984). Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

NPC – National Planning Commission. (2004). National Economic Empowerment and Devel-opment Strategy (NEEDS). Abuja: National Planning Commission.

NPC – National Planning Commission. (2007). NEEDS-2, 2008-2011 – Creating Prosperity through Growth. Abuja: National Planning Commission.

NPC – National Planning Commission. (2006). Nigeria Millennium Development Goals Re-port 2006. Abuja: National Planning Commission.

OSSAP-MDGs.(2008).MDGsNigeria:MidPointAssessmentOverview.Abuja:Officeof theSenior Special Assistant to the President on MDGs.

Soludo, C. C. (2006). “Can Nigeria be the China of Africa?” A Lecture delivered at the Found-er’s Day of the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria.

UN Millennium Project. (2005a). Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

UN Millennium Project. (2005b.) Preparing National Strategies to Achieve the Millennium De-velopment Goals: A Handbook. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

World Bank. (2007). Nigeria: A Fiscal Agenda for Change. Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review (PEMFAR) in two Volumes, Volume 11: Executive Summary, Abuja.

World Bank. (2008). Nigeria: Investment Climate Assessment 2008. Regional Program for En-terprise Development (RPED) Africa Finance and Private Sector (AFTFP) and African Development Bank, Abuja.

World Bank-DFID. (2006). “Nigeria: Competitiveness and Growth”. Report prepared by Kwakwa,V. (WorldBank) andOwusu-Gyamfi,M. (U.K.Departmentof InternationalDevelopment).

38

Appendix I: Questionnaire

Economic Commission for Africa

Commission Economique pour l’Afrique

QUESTIONNAIRE

In 2005 at the UN World Summit and Mid-term Review of Progress towards the targets of the Millennium Development Goals, world leaders resolved that countries with extreme pov-erty adopt and begin to implement MDGs-consistent (MDGs-based) poverty reduction strate-gies/national development plans if they do not have one. Pursuant to this, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), through the MDGs/Poverty Analysis & Monitoring Section, is undertaking a study to investigate the implementation of this resolution in Africa and draw lessons from the experience so far that could be used to improve MDGs-based plan-ning in Africa. This questionnaire is administered to elicit information from government of-ficials,developmentpractitionersandotherstakeholdersonMDGs-basedplanninganddrawlessons and experience on the formulation, implementation and monitoring of such plans.

Instructions: Please answer all the questions that apply and leave blank those that do not.

Confidentiality:InaccordancewiththeAfricanCharteronStatistics,alltheinformationprovidedinresponsetothisquestionnairewillbetreatedwiththestrictestconfidentiality,andyour identity will not be revealed without your express permission.

Contact information of the responder:Name, including title:(Dr./Mr./Mrs./Ms.) (Optional) Telephone No: (Optional) Fax No. (Optional) Email: (Optional)

Main Responsibilities: 1. _ Planner /__/ 2. _ Analyst /__/ 3. _ Director /__/ 4. _Other (Please state) __________________________

Institution 1. Ministry of Planning /__/ 2. Finance /__/ 3.MDGsOffice /__/ 4.PRSPOffice /__/ 5. Other (Please state) /__/

��

How many of the following categories of professionals do you have in your organization? a. Economist /__/__/ b. Planners /__/__/ c. Financial experts /__/__/ d. Budget specialists /__/__/ e. Other (Please state) /__/__/

What percentage of your staff has at most? a. Bachelors degree /__/__/ b. Masters degree /__/__/ c. Doctorate /__/__/ d. Other (Please state) /__/__/

Section 1: National vision1.1 Does your country have a long-term (perspective) national development vision? Yes ___ No ___1.2 If Yes, what is (are) the main area(s) of focus of the national vision?……………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………..

1.3 How consistent is your national long-term development vision with the Millennium Development Goals? a. Completely Consistent /__/ b. Very Consistent /__/ c. Fairly consistent /__/ d. Poorly consistent /__/ e. Independent /__/

1.4 If Consistent (1,2,3 or 4), please describe in your own words in what ways the na-tional vision and development plan is MDGs-consistent .........................................................……………………………………………………………………………………...........……………………………………………………………………………………...........1.5 What was the major impetus for the adoption of the MDGs-consistent national de velopment plan? a. Slow progress towards the targets? /__/ b. New national orientation/commitment? /__/ c. Increase in MDGs funding by development partners? /__/ d. Implementation of the 2005 UN Summit Outcome encouraging countries with extreme poverty to adopt MDGs-consistent national development plans? /__/

1.6 Was the MDGs-consistent national development plan based on? a. National Needs Assessment? /__/ b.Assessmentof thefiscalspaceavailableforfinancingMDGs? /__/ c. A 10-year planning framework? /__/

40

d. MDG sector plans? /__/ e. MDG-based medium term strategies? /__/ f. MDG-based macroeconomic framework? /__/ 1.7 In what year was the MDGs-consistent national development plan adopted?/__/__/__/__/

1.8 In your view, how participatory was the process of development of the national MDGs consistent plan? a. Completely participatory /__/ b. Very participatory /__/ c. Fairly Participatory /__/ d. Poorly participatory /__/ e. Not Participatory /__/

7a. If participatory, specify if the following were involved a. Civil society organizations /__/ b. NGOs /__/ c. The organised private Sector /__/ d. Academia /__/ e. Trade unions and students unions/associations /__/ f. Community-based Organizations /__/ g. Faith-based Organizations /__/ h. Socially excluded groups (women, youth, disabled, PLWHIV/AIDS) /__/ i. Others (please state) /__/ 1.9 In your view, to what extent does the national vision address the MDGs and the targets? Please indicate on a scale of 0 – 10 in ascending order, with “0” meaning “not addressed” MDGsGoal 1 – Eradicate extreme poverty and hungerGoal 2– Achieve universal primary educationGoal 3– Promote gender equality and empower womenGoal 4– Reduce child mortalityGoal 5–Improve maternal healthGoal 6–Combat HIV and AIDS, malaria and other diseasesGoal 7–Ensure environment sustainabilityGoal 8–Develop a global partnership for development

1.10 For the MDGs that you think are not “adequately addressed”, please explain your reasons for such judgement?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....................................................................................................................................……………………………………………………………………………………………….

4�

1.11 What are the critical lessons from the process of articulating the country’s MDGscon sistent national development plan/poverty reduction strategies? MDGs Needs Assessment ………………………………………….……………………………………..............................................................................................................................

Assessmentof fiscalspace……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….....………………………………………………………………………….…………………Ten-year MDG-Planning Framework ……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………MDGs-consistent macroeconomic framework ………………………..…………………………………...........................................................................................................................................

Broad-based participation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

National ownership ………………………………………………………………………..………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………

Support of development partners with respect to a) Financing of the Plan ……………………………………………………… ………….….………………………………………………………………………. b) Technical advice) …………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………….. c) Participation…………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………

1.12 In your judgement, are programmes of the development partners aligned with MDG priorities? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

Please give reasons for your answer

Section 2: Formulation of medium-term strategies to support the MDGs-consistent national development/plan poverty reduction strategies;

2.1. Does your country have a medium-term strategy to implement the MDGs-consistent national development and to the national development vision? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

42

If Yes, how are the medium-term strategies realistically aligned to the MDGs-consistent na-tional vision?..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................If No, why is there no medium-term strategy? ………………………......................................……………………………………………………………………………………………

2.2. Have the sectoral strategies been revised? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

If yes (1 or 2), what were the reasons for such revisions? a)Inadequatefinancing /__/ b) Inconsistency between the medium-term strategies and the national vision /__/ c) Limited data to monitor and evaluate progress /__/ d) Poor alignment to the MDGs /__/ e)Changesthatoccurredinthesectorandwhichneededtobereflected /__/ f) Others /__/

2.3 Are the revised sectoral strategies, now better aligned with the MDGs-consistent de velopment plan? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

If Yes, how? ………………………………………………………………………………………………….........................................................................................................................................

IfNo,why?………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………

2.4. Onascaleof 0–10(0meaningnotreflectedatall)pleaseindicateinascending orderhowadequatelyembedded/reflectedcross-cuttingissueslistedbelowarein the medium term strategies? GenderHIV/AIDSEmploymentSanitation

2.5. Does your country have a Medium-Term Budget Framework or and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/If Yes, is the MTEF based on the MDGs-Needs Assessment? If No, why?

4�

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................................................................2.6 Was the macro-economic framework been revised to make it consistent with the MDGs-consistent national development plan/poverty reduction strategies? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/ If yes, please explain,………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..

2.7 Havetherebeenanybudgetprocessreformstoimprovetheefficiencyof public sectorfinancialmanagementandtheeffectivenessof publicspending? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/ If yes,pleasebrieflydescribethemajorelementsof thereforms..............................………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.8 What are the critical lessons that emerged from the process of articulating the MDGs consistent medium-term strategies?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Section 3: The MDGs at the sub-national level

Progress towards the targets of the MDGs depends on action at the national and sub-na-tional levels. In this Section, the questionnaire seeks to elicit information on the ex-tent to which sub-national governments (or decentralized administrative units) are in-volved in articulating MDGs-consistent national development plans and strategies.

3.1. Is there an awareness of the MDGs at sub-national levels in your country? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

3.2. Is the development of the national development strategy framed by any or all of the following?

Yes or NoConstitutional division of policy formulation responsibility across national and sub-national governmentsConstitutional division of revenue or tax jurisdictions across national and sub-national governmentsConstitutional division of spending responsibilities (particularly MDG-related spending) across national and sub-national governments

44

3.2.1 Based on your answers to 3.2 please explain if sub-national governments have their own development plans? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

3.2.2. If Yes, are the individual plans of sub-national governments subsets of the national plan? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

3.2.3. If “No” please describe the institutional/other mechanism for involving sub-national jurisdictions in the articulation of a national MDGs-consistent poverty reduction strategies/national development plan and for ensuring complementarity and consistency between the two.………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………

3.3. HowareMDGsspecificinterventionsfinancedatthesub-nationallevel?

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% 100%

From constitutionally mandated transfers from central govern-mentFrom own internally generated resourcesFrom development aid resources centrally negotiatedGrants from development part-ners and the central governmentLoans directly negotiated by the sub-national government

3.4 In your view, are the development plans of sub-national governments MDGs consis tent? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/Are they based on needs assessment at sub-national government levels? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/

4�

3.5 In recognizing the division of roles and responsibilities, how do the me dium term strategies allow for coordination across different tiers of government? …………………………………………………...............................................................................................3.6 Please indicate the critical lessons that emerged from articulating country’s medium term strategies to achieve the MDGs at sub-national government levels? Capacityforeconomicandsocialde�elopmentplanningFiscalpolicyresponsibilityCapacitytoformulate,executeandmonitorbudgetCapacityforser�icedeli�ery

Section 4: Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting

4.1 Is there a national system of monitoring, evaluating and reporting on progress towards the MDGs? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/ If yes, describe the system?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.2 How does this arrangement take into account ministries, departments and agencies (at the national level)?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.3 How are the monitoring, evaluation and reporting vertically structured to take the sub-national governments into account? ………………………………………………………………………………….........................................................................................….............................................................................................................................................

4.4 Are data desegregated to sub-national levels? a. Yes /__/ b. No /__/ Provide details.................................................................................................................................................……………………………………………………………..………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………..………………..

4.5 How timely and readily available are the data used for the purpose of monitoring, evaluation and reporting? ………………………………………………………………………………..…………………..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

4.6 What in your view are the major constraints to developing and implementing your

46

country’s MDGs-consistent national development plan? a. Poor awareness of the MDGs in Ministries, Departments and Agencies? /__/ b. Poor coordination among Ministries, Departments and Agencies? /__/ c. Weak national planning and implementation capacity? /__/ d. Low political commitment to the MDGs? /__/ e. Inadequate budget allocation to MDGs sectors? /__/ f. Unpredictability of aid disbursement by donors? /__/ g. Lack of an MDGs constituency in Parliament? /__/ h. Lack of coherence between national and sub-national MDGs plans? /__/ i. Poor mobilization of the populace for the MDGs /__/ j. Any other reasons /__/

4.6a. Foreachof theconstraintsidentifiedabove,pleasedescribethedegreeof severity

Notse�ere Moderatelyse�ere

Veryse-�ere

PoorawarenessoftheMDGsinMinistries,De-partmentsandAgencies?PoorcoordinationamongMinistries,DepartmentsandAgencies?Weaknationalplanningandimplementationcapacity?LowpoliticalcommitmenttotheMDGs?InadequatebudgetallocationtoMDGssectors?Unpredictabilityofaiddisbursementbydonors?LackofanMDGsconstituencyinParliament?Lackofcoherencebetweennationalandsub-na-tionalMDGsplans?PoormobilizationofthepopulacefortheMDGsAnyotherreasons

4.7 In your view, how can these constraints be attenuated?…............................................................................................................................................……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....

4.8 Are there any relevant issues that were not covered in the questionnaire? If yes, what are your views, comments and observations on these issues?.................................................................................................................................................…………………………………………………………………………………………….....

4�

APPENDIX II: List of Persons Interviewed

NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

1. Prof. Sylvester Monye Executive Secretary

2. Mrs. C. M. Ikpechukwu Director National Plans Department

3. Mr. E. A. Omotosho Director

4. Mr. Kenneth Kwujeli PlanningOfficer

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

5. Mr. C. M. Anyanwu Deputy Director Research Department

OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT ON MDGS

6. Hajiya Aminaa J. Ibrahim Senior Special Assistant to the President on MDGs

7. Barth T. Fesse

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS

8. Dr. V. O. Akinyosoye Director General

9. Mrs. F. O. Obikudu

10. Dr. S. J. Mayaki

11. Henry Eteama

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

12. Cisse Z. Marcelin Economist

48

13. Prof. Funmi Soetan Poverty Alleviation Unit

14. Adeyemi Fajimgbesi

WORLD BANK

15. Prof. Foluso Okunmadewa Lead Social Sector Specialist

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FINANCE

16. Dr. Bright Okogwu Director General BudgetOfficeof theFederation

17. Alhaji Haruna Mohammed Deputy Director International Development Finance

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

18. Dr. Namawu Alhassan Alolo Acting Resident Economist

19. Dr. Gregory Osunbor Social Sector Specialist

20. Dr. O. S. Okeke Agriculture Sector Specialist

ACTION AID

21. Dr. Otive Igbuzor Country Director

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

22. Engr. D. Madaki

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH

23. Aminu Yakubu

24. Dr. Mrs. Ngozi Azodo

4�

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

25. Mr. Ndubuisi Osuji Assistant Director

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

26. Mohammed T. Babakobi Assistant Director, Engineering

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENERGY

27. Oregbesan Olalekan

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF WOMEN AFFAIRS

28. Mrs. M. N. Ajanah Director

50

APPENDIX III: Revenue and Expenditure Shares of Federal, State and Local Governments, 2003-2007

Fiscal Indicator 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003-2007 Average

Gross Domestic Product 9,913.50 11,411.10 14,572.20 18,564.60 22,848.90 15,462.06

Distributed Federation Account Revenue 1,821.00 2,516.90 2,741.30 2,964.30 3,194.30 2,647.56

Federal Government Share (N’ billion) 917.10 1,225.90 1,334.70 1,859.00 1,500.80 1,367.50

Federal Government Share (%) 50.36 48.71 48.69 62.71 46.98 51.49

State Governments’ Share (N’ billion) 419.80 582.20 627.50 703.00 761.20 618.74

State Governments’ Share - Mineral Derivation -13% (N’ billion)

137.20 259.90 295.30 333.40 345.30 274.22

State Governments’ Share (%) 30.59 33.46 33.66 34.96 34.64 33.46

Local Government Share (N’ billion) 346.9 448.9 483.8 542 586.90 481.70

Local Governments’ Share (%) 19.05 17.84 17.65 18.28 18.37 18.24

Total Expenditure of all Governments 2,492.06 3,090.36 3,986.28 4,291.55 5,394.44 3,850.94

Federal Government expenditure (N’ billion) 1,209.20 1,504.20 1,919.70 2,038.00 2,450.90 1,824.40

Federal Government expenditure (%) 48.52 48.67 48.16 47.49 45.43 47.66

State Governments’ expenditure (N’ billion) 921.16 1,125.06 1,478.58 1,587.75 2,116.14 1,445.74

State Governments expenditure (%) 36.96 36.41 37.09 37.00 39.23 37.34

Local Government expenditure (N’ billion) 361.7 461.1 588 665.8 827.4 580.8

Local Government expenditure (%) 14.51 14.92 14.75 15.51 15.34 15.01

All governments’ expenditure as % of GDP 25.14 27.08 27.36 23.12 23.61 24.91

Total Recurrent Expenditure by all Governments 1,738.31 1,963.21 2,484.92 2,682.67 3,490.33 2,471.89

Federal Government recurrent expenditure (N’ billion)

981.4 1110.7 1321.3 1390.2 1589.3 1278.58

Federal Government recurrent expenditure (%) 56.46 56.58 53.17 51.82 45.53 51.72

State Governments’ recurrent expenditure (N’ billion)

545.31 556.81 789.12 894.27 1,217.43 800.59

State Governments recurrent expenditure (%) 31.37 28.36 31.76 33.34 34.88 32.39

Local Government recurrent expenditure (N’ billion)

211.60 295.70 374.50 398.20 683.60 392.72

Local Government recurrent expenditure (%) 12.17 15.06 15.07 14.84 19.59 15.89

Total Capital Expenditure by all Governments 715.92 929.63 1,247.62 1,405.08 1,757.89 1,211.23

Federal Government capital expenditure (N’ billion)

241.8 351.3 519.4 552.4 759.3 484.84

Federal Government capital expenditure (%) 33.77 37.79 41.63 39.31 43.19 40.03

State Governments’ capital expenditure (N’ bil-lion)

324.02 412.93 514.72 584.98 854.79 538.288

State Governments capital expenditure (%) 45.26 44.42 41.26 41.63 48.63 44.44

Local Government capital expenditure (N’ billion) 150.10 165.40 213.50 267.70 143.80 188.10

Local Government capital expenditure (%) 20.97 17.79 17.11 19.05 8.18 15.53Source: CBN Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ending 31 December 2007.

��

APPENDIX IV: State-Level MDGs Status and Related Indicators

State

pov-erty inci-dence (Head Count) 2007

pov-erty gap 2007

pov-erty sever-ity 2007

gini index (%) 2007

Popula-tion (2006 Census)

Popula-tion Den-sity (per Sq.Km) 2006

HIV preva-lence rate (2005)

Fully vacci-nated (%)

ratio of recur-rent to capital ex-pendi-ture in million naira (2007)

internally gener-ated revenue as % of total revenue in million nai-ra(2007)

Infant mor-tality rate (2007)

Un-der-5 mor-tality rate (2007)

% of house-holds using im-proved sources of water (2007)

% of house-holds using sanitary means of excreta dis-posal (2007)

ABIA 32.4 10.7 3.4 47 2833999 578.3 2.15 49.5 3.74 5.83 88 142 63.6 75.7

ADAMAWA 71.6 34.3 16.2 47 3168101 81.8 4.5 29.6 1.68 5.07 96 157 19 46.6

AKWA IBOM 50.8 18 6.4 50 3920208 568.1 7.35 29.3 2.19 4.62 71 111 53.3 84.5

ANAMBRA 32.1 8.6 2.3 48 4182032 859.6 4.23 47.7 1.29 14.84 88 142 57.4 70.6

BAUCHI 77 33.1 14.1 48 4676465 95.2 4.5 17.3 1.48 3.56 96 157 35.2 40.9

BAYELSA 33.3 11.8 4.3 48 1703358 188.0 3.65 0 2.71 3.84 71 111 36.6 17.5

BENUE 48.8 15.5 4.9 55 4219244 136.9 11.13 39 1.32 8.017 74 117 24.1 23

BORNO 50.6 19.6 7.2 40 4151193 57.1 3 12.5 0.66 3.82 96 157 30 33.2

CROSS RIVER

55 23.7 9.5 51 2888966 132.6 6.65 21.6 3.65 14.37 71 111 30.9 31.5

DELTA 64.5 24.9 9.6 47 4098391 239.5 4.5 29.8 1.98 11.38 71 111 65.6 59.4

EBONYI 51.9 19.2 7.6 41 2173501 339.6 5.15 47.2 2.17 3.89 88 142 51.2 22.2

EDO 47 19.8 7.7 46 3218332 167.7 5.35 27.8 1.44 11.99 71 111 60.7 60.3

EKITI 39.3 12 3.6 51 2384212 438.6 1.65 49.7 0.91 5.97 64 99 67.4 27.5

ENUGU 36.8 12 3.8 44 3257298 432.3 7.85 51.5 2.83 6.72 88 142 37.8 38.9

GOMBE 70 29.8 12.6 43 2353879 137.6 6.15 22.3 1.82 10.26 96 157 18.2 24.8

IMO 28.1 8.8 2.8 51 3934899 744.1 4 28.5 3.53 8.28 88 142 62.6 70.3

JIGAWA 90.9 47.3 24.6 44 4348649 186.7 2.15 2.8 101 166 56 9.9

52

KADUNA 40.9 12.7 3.8 42 6066562 142.8 5 14.2 1.14 7.74 101 166 48.9 38.3

KANO 49.7 18 6.2 43 9383682 462.7 3.56 13.7 1.47 10.41 101 166 39.8 53.9

KATSINA 62.2 25 9.9 41 5792578 245.8 3 20.4 0.47 2.94 101 166 42.8 15.5

KEBBI 89 41.1 19 41 3238628 87.5 3.3 10.5 0.72 13.98 101 166 19.9 22

KOGI 89.6 56.2 35.3 56 3278487 118.1 5 26.5 1.86 11.84 74 117 36.2 21

KWARA 81.7 43.5 23.5 48 2371089 66.4 2.65 34.3 2.66 9.23 74 117 70.9 34.2

LAGOS 67 35.6 18.9 64 9013534 2455.3 3.7 49.7 1.12 51.18 64 99 75.6 84.8

NASSAR-AWA

52.9 17 5.5 47 1863275 64.8 6.75 12.4 6.35 1.42 74 117 44.7 27.7

NIGER 60.5 22.3 8.1 46 3950249 57.3 6.7 30.4 2.65 24.52 74 117 61.1 59.7

OGUN 31 10 3.1 53 3728098 227.3 2.35 61.4 3.16 11.41 64 99 73.9 63.3

ONDO 47.3 15.4 5.1 50 3441024 217.5 3.8 58.4 1.60 3.18 64 99 57.2 37.5

OSUN 24.7 6.9 1.9 50 3423535 379.2 2.5 50.1 1.70 14.85 64 99 68.6 37.3

OYO 21 5.9 1.7 43 5591589 211.0 1.86 27.1 1.53 13.90 64 99 79.5 33.1

PLATEAU 54.9 21.7 8.4 44 3178712 117.0 6.35 38.6 10.93 7.47 74 117 31.3 11.7

RIVERS 46.4 18.7 7.1 48 5185400 490.3 5.6 36.8 0.24 10.59 71 111 61 40.9

SOKOTO 74.5 34.7 15.6 33 3696999 132.8 3 0.4 4.33 19.33 101 166 29.3 24.1

TARABA 58 21 7.7 51 2300736 40.8 6.5 27.2 0.78 8.23 96 157 20.2 24.6

YOBE 78.2 33.1 14.4 45 2321591 49.8 3.85 1.4 1.53 2.48 96 157 30.9 28.2

ZAMFARA 76.4 32.4 13.7 34 3259846 85.9 3.85 1.4 0.33 15.31 101 166 53.1 20.2

FCT 51.4 22.4 8.6 44 1405201 184.7 11.55 64.8 1.03 17.56 74 117 67.3 56.2

��

Appendix V: State-Level MDGs Indicators

State

% of children of primary school entry age currently attending Grade 1 (2007)

Primary school net at-tendance ratio (2007)

sec-ondary school net at-tendance ratio (2007)

% who reach Grade 5 of those who enter 1st Grade (2007)

net primary school comple-tion rate (2007)

gender parity index for primary school (net at-tendance ratio of girls to boys) 2007

gender parity index for secondary school (net at-tendance ratio of girls to boys) 2007

% of women aged 15-24 years that are literate

Primary school net at-tendance ratio (NAR) girls

Second-ary school net at-tendance ratio (NAR), girls

ABIA 82.9 98.7 79.3 95.3 59.7 1 1.02 93.6 98.5 80.2

ADAMA-WA

10.2 12.6 10.5 100 1.3 1.22 1.29 15.6 13.8 12.1

AKWA IBOM

76.9 95.6 69.5 98 68.4 0.99 1.01 77.9 94.9 69.8

ANAM-BRA

78.1 96.8 71.6 97.2 51.8 1 0.98 88.4 97.0 70.7

BAUCHI 8.1 9.5 4.6 90 5.7 0.61 0.38 5.4 7.1 2.4

BAY-ELSA

71.4 96.5 74.2 97.1 61.1 0.99 0.89 80.5 95.9 69.8

BENUE 61.8 86.4 56.2 99 37.1 1 0.9 57.4 86.2 52.9

BORNO 11.1 18.6 8.3 75 10.4 0.96 0.52 7.7 18.2 5.5

CROSS RIVER

71.4 98.3 71 97.9 63.2 0.99 1.05 78.7 97.6 72.6

DELTA 73.2 96 75.4 95.8 63.6 0.99 1.13 83.2 95.7 79.6

EBONYI 60.6 90.9 56 98.5 33.6 0.95 1.03 74.6 88.4 56.7

EDO 70.4 94.2 69.6 92.9 48.3 1 0.95 83.7 94.2 67.8

EKITI 58.8 99.1 84.8 100 67.2 0.99 0.96 89.2 98.8 83.1

ENUGU 85 97 70.3 95.7 44.7 1.01 1.02 86.4 97.2 71.0

GOMBE 15.1 28.2 16 83.9 13.8 0.72 0.96 14.5 23.6 15.6

IMO 72.6 96.8 73.6 96.4 64.6 1.02 1.1 94.6 98.1 77.0

JIGAWA 23.9 47.5 23.1 94.5 24.8 0.88 0.46 9.9 44.6 14.2

KA-DUNA

50.6 74.4 48.8 91.9 21.9 0.95 0.94 45.2 72.4 47.1

KANO 25.9 47.3 27.5 95.2 15.3 0.75 0.48 12.7 40.6 17.5

KAT-SINA

36.1 42 16.7 94 14.3 0.74 0.31 7.6 35.7 7.6

KEBBI 15.5 25.2 20.9 96.8 16.1 0.57 0.89 16.6 18.2 19.4

KOGI 65.3 94.5 73.7 100 54.5 0.97 0.97 67.2 93.1 72.5

KWARA 71.6 93.8 70.1 100 43.5 0.95 1.03 73.7 91.3 71.5

LAGOS 70 97.5 85.3 97.6 70.6 0.99 0.97 91.8 96.8 84.1

NAS-SARA-WA

49.3 80.7 57 100 43.8 0.97 0.93 51.2 79.4 54.9

NIGER 45.6 72.2 56.3 97.2 54.4 0.92 0.75 32.5 69.1 47.9

OGUN 75 97.3 75.1 100 50 0.97 1.09 77.8 95.8 78.6

ONDO 69.1 98.8 76.1 99 57.1 1 0.96 85.5 98.8 74.5

OSUN 70 99.4 77.1 97.6 57.7 1.01 0.95 89.1 100.0 75.0

OYO 76.5 94.7 70.6 97.4 52.2 0.99 0.97 80.6 94.1 69.7

54

PLA-TEAU

53.8 75.1 46.2 72.6 23.7 1.04 0.9 58.3 76.8 43.7

RIVERS 72.3 95.9 75 100 63.2 1.02 1.02 81.3 96.8 75.8

SO-KOTO

17.4 24.8 14.8 95 12.6 0.84 0.34 7.1 22.6 7.0

TARABA 5.2 7.7 6.4 88 3.6 0.8 0.42 7.2 6.9 3.6

YOBE 7.4 8.7 6.8 85 4 0.87 0.67 5 8.0 5.3

ZAM-FARA

14.7 25.4 18.4 94.4 15.9 0.58 0.6 17.6 18.3 13.4

FCT 65 90.6 67.3 96 51.1 1 0.83 60.6 90.6 60.8

��

Appendix VI: Terms of Reference for Country Studies on MDGs-basedPlanning in SSA

Background

Heads of state and governments from all over the world met in September 2000, in the largest-ever high-level gathering at the United Nations, and adopted the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). By these goals, countries committed to making significantprogressonkeydimensionsof developmentby2015.Toensuresignificantprog-ress towards achieving these goals, the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit urged developing countries to “adopt, by 2006, and implement comprehensive national development strategies to achieve the internationally agreed goals and objectives, including the Millennium DevelopmentGoals”.Africa’scommitmenttoMDGswasreaffirmedattheAUSummitheldin Banjul, The Gambia, and at subsequent AU Summits and Ministerial Conferences and ECA Conferencesof AfricanMinistersof Finance,PlanningandEconomicDevelopment,specifi-callytheFortiethConferencewhichcalledforfirmlygroundedactionplanstoachievethegoals.

Against this backdrop, ECA has, through various means, assisted African countries to better design and implement their poverty reduction or national development plans. In particular, the African Learning Group on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP-LG) was launched in 2001 to serve as a platform for the articulation of an African view on the PRSPs and to facili-tate systematic knowledge sharing on poverty reduction strategies among African countries. In response to countries’ request to have a permanent learning platform, ECA also established the “Enhanced Knowledge Sharing Network to Support the Poverty Reduction Process in Africa” project intended to serve as a mechanism for sustaining information sharing and policy dialogue in-between meetings of the Learning Group. Following the Cairo African Plenary on Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development Goals, the mandate of the Learning Group was broadened to include peer-learning and experience sharing on MDGs. To better re-flectitsnewscopeandremit,theLearningGroupwasrenamedPRS-MDGsLearningGroup.

All these efforts have contributed to enhancing capacities across the continent on PRSs andMDGs, as reflected by the growing number of countries that has conceived and im-plemented MDG-based poverty reduction strategies or national development plans. As of March 2008, forty-one countries had developed MDG-consistent poverty reduction strategies or national development plans, although of varying comprehensiveness and ef-ficacy. Indeed, strategies differ across countries with respect to the degree of opennessof the participatory process. Marked differences also exist on the content and effective-ness of these strategic documents as well on their monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

Cognizant of the fact that sustained efforts are essential for safeguarding and broadening the recent gains, ECA plans to re-launch the PRS/MDG Learning Group and intends to under-take seven country studies on experiences and lessons learned in preparing and implement-ing MDG-based poverty reduction strategies or national development plans. These studies will provide a strong analytical basis for the peer-learning, knowledge sharing and capacity building efforts pursued through both the African PRS/MDG Learning Group and the “En-hanced Knowledge Sharing Network to Support the Poverty Reduction Process in Africa”