June 2016 Project Proposal on Institutionalizing Transparent and Accountable Public

Financial Management in Nigeria through Participatory Budgeting

Prepared By: Gerald Ogoko

Client: Oxfam Novib Nigeria

-1-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………… 2 List of Figures & Tables…………………………………………………………………….… 4 Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 5 1. Rationale……………………………………………………….…………………………… 7 1.1 Background………………………………………………….……………………………. 7 1.2 Current State of Public Finance in Nigeria………………………………………….….. 10 1.2.1 Existing Institutional Arrangements for Budgeting in Nigeria………………………. 11 1.2.2 Efforts to Institutionalize Participatory Budgeting in Nigeria…………………….….. 14 1.3 Statement of Problem and Opportunities………………………………………………. 15 1.4 Objectives of the Participatory Budget Project……………………………………….… 19 2. The Oxfam/NLC Intervention………………………………………………………..….. 20 2.1 Technical Approach………………………………………………………………….…… 22 2.1.1 Phase 1: Capacity Building……………………………………………………….…… 23 2.1.2 Phase 2: Citizen’s Mobilization………………………..………………………….…… 24 2.1.3 Phase 3: Implementing a Participatory Budget Cycle….…………………………… 25 2.2 Perceived Benefits of the Project…………………………….…………………….…... 27 2.3 Project Risks/Challenges………………………………………………………………… 28 2.4 Results Framework and Administrative Structure...…………………………….…….. 29 2.4.1 Expected Project Results……………………………………………………………… 29 2.4.2 Project Administrative Structure………………………………………………….…… 31 2.4.3 Planning and Organization of the Project……………………………………….……. 33 2.4.4 Core Implementation Team…………………………………………………………… 34 2.4.5 Project Plan………………………………………………………………………….…. 36 3. Oxfam/Novib: Track Record in Managing Governance Projects…………..…….. 42 3.1 Practical Insights…………………………………………………………………….….… 48 3.2 The Nigeria Labour Congress’ Experience to Partner on this Project………….….… 49 Annex A: Project Log-Frame Matrix………………………………………………….…….. 52 Annex B: Stakeholder Matrix………………………………………………………….…….. 55 Annex C: Budget for the Participatory Budget……………………………………………… 56

-2-

Acronyms

CBN Central Bank of Nigeria CDAs Community Development Associations CEPA Cambridge Economic Policy Associates CISLAC Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre CIT Core Implementation Team CPPA Centre for Public Policy Alternatives CPC Consumer Protection Council COREN The Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria CRAFT The Capacity for Research Advocacy for Fair Taxation CSO Civil Society Organization DELT4SLOG Deepening Expenditure Line Tracking for States and Local Governments DFID Department for International Development ECA Excess Crude Account EFCC Economic & Financial Crimes Commission EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative ERGP Economic Reform and Governance Project FASDA Fiscal Allocation and the Statutory Disbursement Audit FCT Federal Capital Territory FMoF Federal Ministry of Finance GCI Global Competitiveness Index GGP Good Governance Programme HR Human Resources IBP International Budget Partnership ICPC Independent Corrupt Practices Commission ILO International Labour Organization LDCs Least Developing Countries LG Local Government MDAs Ministries, Departments, and Agencies MoU Memorandum of Understanding MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework MTPR Mid Term Performance Reviews MTSS Medium Term Sector Strategies NASS National Assembly NDDC Niger Delta Development Commission NDEBUMOG Niger Delta Budget Monitoring Group NEEDS National Economic Empowerment & Development Strategy NEITI Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative NLC Nigerian Labour Congress NMA Nigerian Medical Association NPM New Public Management NULGE National Union of Local Government Employees OBI Open Budget Index PB Participatory Budget PCC Public Complaints Commission PEFA Public Expenditure & Financial Accountability PFM Public Financial Management PIB Petroleum Industry Bill PMU Project Monitoring Unit PO Project Officer PSAGP Public Sector Accountability & Governance Programme PSC Project Steering Committee PSU Project Support Unit QCBS Quality and Cost-Based Selection SAP Structural Adjustment Programme

-3-

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely SO State Officer SRIP Support to Reforming Institutions Programme SSC State-level Steering Committee STREPF Strengthening Public Finance in Nigeria Project TSA Treasury Single Account TMG Transition Monitoring Group TUC Trade Union Congress ZBB Zero-Based Budgeting

-4-

List of Figures & Tables

FIGURES

Figure 1: Integrating the Theory of Change in the Proposed PB Project…….…………….…21

Figure 2: Proposed Organizational Structure for the Participatory Budget Project...………. 32

TABLES

Table 1: Project Risks & Mitigation Measures………………….………..…………….……… 25

Table 2: Timelines for the Participatory Budget Project……………………..………………...29

Table 3: Task Design/Structure for the Core Implementation Team…………………………35

-5-

Executive Summary

In the last 16 years up until recently, Nigeria earned over 150 billion USD annually in foreign

revenue mostly from crude oil. In the same period, however, poverty rates continued to rise. In

the Global Competitive Index (GCI) 2013 -2014 released by the World Economic Forum, Nigeria

dropped five places from 2012’s 115th position to 120th among the 148 countries profiled. Poor

service delivery and unaccountable opaque public service have been identified as the twin

contributors to poverty in Nigeria. This situation is likely to worsen as oil prices dwindle and

Nigeria faces one of its worst economic crises in decades.

While this situation presents major challenges, it also provides the country with a new

opportunity to prioritise spending and make budgeting more pro-poor as the only way to avert

economic and social disaster. The election of a new and more prudent government in 2015 also

presents hope in such a shift in spending and behaviour. However, despite the gloomy

economic future ahead and the new government’s willingness to make public spending more

prudent and accountable, change is often difficult, slow and resisted. The 2015-2016 budgeting

exercise in which the budget was ‘padded’, irrelevant and extravagant expenditure added,

attests to the fact that more will be needed to truly transform the budgeting system and make it

more representative of the needs and desires of the majority of the Nigerian people.

Historically, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) has played the key role of ‘defenders of

workers rights’ and by extension the poor and marginalised. They have often challenged

government on unfair wages, unjust dismissals, and price hikes, especially of petroleum. While

their efforts in the past have yielded results, recently this has not been so. Labour has not been

as successful in fighting for workers’ rights as they had been in the past. There are many

factors responsible for this, but paramount amongst these is Labour’s inability to address the

root causes of the worker’s plight. The NLC has most often been reactionary, addressing the

consequences of the problem such as poor wages or redundancies instead of the underlying

causes of the government’s inability to meet the needs of workers; corruption, mismanagement

and inefficient and ineffective budgeting. Despite the recent internal crises within the NLC,

labour still commands the respect of majority of Nigerians as the agency for fighting for the

rights of the poor. Their ability to mobilise huge sectors of the population remains largely intact

making them a key stakeholder in any process that truly hopes to transform Nigeria.

For the NLC to be able to truly improve the situation of workers in particular and Nigerians in

general, they have to become more intrusive in the budget process. They need to demand

greater accountability and citizens’ participation in preparing, implementing and evaluating

budgets as it has been demonstrated from other examples such as Porto Alegre in southern

-6-

Brazil where citizens’ participation in budgetary decision-making can lead to sharp increases in

the reach and coverage of essential services, particularly to the poor. Fostering broad and

meaningful participation in the budget process in Nigeria is particularly challenging because the

government is not inclined to share decision-making power with the public. The limited capacity

of many of the actors –such as the NLC, CSOs, and pressure groups- also limits participation.

Furthermore, the poor generally possess limited education, a low level of literacy, and little

familiarity with the policy process.

This is why Oxfam is seeking support to partner with the NLC for a 5-year project to

institutionalize Participatory Budgeting (PB) in Nigeria for poverty reduction and improved living

standards of Nigerians. PB is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, and a

type of participatory democracy, in which ordinary people decide how to allocate part of

a municipal or public budget. Participatory budgeting allows citizens to identify, discuss, and

prioritize public spending projects, and gives them the power to make real decisions about how

money is spent. When PB is taken seriously and is based on mutual trust, local governments

and citizen can benefit equally. PB has the potential to provide social inclusion and social equity

in the decision making of the allocation of resources in communities with low socioeconomic

statuses.1

In particular, the project will empower the NLC, relevant civil society organisations, the media

and key citizens groups at the national and state levels on participatory budgeting (PB) to

influence budget formulation and monitor public spending, enhance progressive revenue

mobilization and expenditure, ensure efficient and pro poor budget implementation, promote

gender responsive budgeting, and increase pressure on government agencies to be transparent

and accountable in budget matters. This will contribute to existing efforts to reduce corruption at

all levels of government. Through journalism training, the media will be enabled to provide

relevant, accurate and easy-to-understand coverage of government revenue streams, budget

formulation, and the tracking of expenditure.

By targeting reforms in public resource management and improvement in public service

delivery, Oxfam would be contributing to solving the root causes of poverty in Nigeria. In doing

this, Oxfam will support financial management best practices in public institutions and

institutionalize systems that are critical to improved service delivery, transparency and

accountability in public service; as well as provide support to non-state actors (civil society),

especially the NLC, by equipping them with the necessary skills to demand good public

governance.

1 Montambeault, Francoise (2016). "Between collective action and individual appropriation: The informal dimensions

of participatory budgeting in Recife, Brazil". Politics and Society.

-7-

1. RATIONALE

1.1 Background

Poor public expenditure management in Nigeria has greatly hampered the quality of

government capital projects (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007; Soludo, 2007; King,

2003). This has resulted in poor service delivery to citizens. According to Okonjo-Iweala and

Osafo-Kwaako (2007), weaknesses in budget implementation and monitoring had in the past,

resulted in low quality of government expenditures and many uncompleted projects. In their

opinion, strengthening the budget preparation and execution process was, therefore, urgently

needed in order to improve the efficiency of government spending and improve service delivery

to the Nigerian public (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007). According to a report in

ThisDay newspaper (2009) which was based on a comprehensive study conducted by the

International Budget Partnership (IBP) in 2008, “Nigeria is among 25 countries in the world that

provide scant or no budget information to enable the public hold the government accountable

for managing their money” (Ikokwu, 2009). The study went on to conclude that nearly 50% of

national governments are successful in hiding “unpopular, wasteful and corrupt” spending from

the public. In the study, Nigeria scored 19 on a scale of 1 to 100 in the Open Budget Index

(2008).

Seven years after, the Open Budget Index score for Nigeria has not improved, remaining at 24

over 100. In the Open Budget Index score, each country is given a score out of 100 which

determines its ranking on the Open Budget Index – the world’s only independent and

comparative measure of budget transparency. Nigeria’s score of 24 out of 100 is substantially

lower than the global average score of 45. According to the Open Budget Index Report for

Nigeria, the Government has been inconsistent in which documents are made publicly available

in a given year. Since 2012, the Government of Nigeria has increased the availability of budget

information by:

Publishing the Citizens Budget.

Improving the comprehensiveness of the Executive’s Budget Proposal.

Improving the comprehensiveness of the Enacted Budget and Year-End Report.

The budget process in Nigeria is constrained by the following factors:

The government failing to publish a Pre-Budget Statement and In-Year Reports in a

timely manner.

Excessive bureaucracy underscores the budget formulation process and this is

responsible for delays, i.e. failure to comply with the statutory budget cycle.

-8-

The budget process is not open. Releases are done without the knowledge of citizens

and this creates room for corruption and mismanagement of public resources.

Moreover, the Government of Nigeria has failed to make progress, continuing to produce both

the Mid-Year Review and the Audit Report for internal use only, and so not making them

available to the public. Poor access to and quality of budget information further undermines the

ability of civil society organizations and the media to research, monitor and comment on

government budgeting.

Evidence suggests that transparency alone is insufficient for improving governance, and that

public participation in budgeting can maximize the positive outcomes associated with greater

budget transparency. To measure public participation, the Open Budget Survey assesses the

degree to which the government provides opportunities for the public to engage in budget

processes. Such opportunities should be provided throughout the budget cycle by the

executive, the legislature, and the supreme audit institution. Nigeria’s score of 25 out of 100

indicates that the provision of opportunities for the public to engage in the budget process is

weak. This is the same as the global average score of 25.

The Open Budget Survey examines the extent to which legislatures and supreme audit

institutions are able to provide effective oversight of the budget. These institutions play a critical

role – often enshrined in national constitutions – in planning budgets and overseeing their

implementation. For Nigeria, the report indicates that the legislature provides limited oversight

during the planning stage of the budget cycle and adequate oversight during the implementation

stage of the budget cycle. However, the Executive’s Budget Proposal is not provided to

legislators at least three months before the start of the budget year, nor is it approved by

legislators at least one month before the start of the budget year. In addition, in both law and

practice, the legislature is not consulted prior to spending contingency funds that were not

identified in the Enacted Budget. The report also notes that the supreme audit institution

provides limited budget oversight. Under the law, it has significant discretion to undertake audits

as it sees fit. Moreover, the head of the supreme audit institution cannot be removed without

legislative or judicial approval, which bolsters its independence. Finally, the supreme audit

institution is provided with insufficient resources to fulfil its mandate and has no quality

assurance system in place.

The following measures are critical to improving budget transparency in Nigeria:

Strengthening the technical capacity of government MDAs to generate the basic budget

documents required by international best practices in budget transparency. This can be

achieved by introducing comprehensive information systems to enhance the capacity of

-9-

government at all levels to produce accurate and timely budget information. This can be

achieved by creating or leveraging on existing information disclosure mechanisms, such

as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act,2 to encourage the government to proactively

make information available to the public. For this purpose, donor agencies can support

the government in establishing e-government systems that harness the power of

Information Technology (IT).

Strengthening the capacity of the National Assembly (NASS) and State Assemblies

Budget Appropriation Committee to provide much needed oversight over the budget

process, especially during implementation.

Strengthening the capacity of CSOs and pressure groups –particularly the NLC- in

conducting value-for-money audits on government projects and programs both at the

national and state levels.

The government should prioritize the following actions to improve budget participation in

Nigeria:

Establish credible and effective mechanisms (i.e., public hearings, surveys, focus

groups) for capturing a range of public perspectives during budget planning, and

introduce public engagement mechanisms to support monitoring of budget

implementation.

Hold legislative hearings to review and scrutinize Audit Reports.

Establish formal mechanisms for the public to assist the supreme audit institution to

formulate its audit program and participate in audit investigations.

To strengthen budget oversight, Nigeria should prioritize the following actions:

Ensure the Executive’s Budget Proposal is provided to legislators at least three months

before the start of the budget year.

In both law and practice, ensure the legislature is consulted prior to the spending of

contingency funds that were not identified in the Enacted Budget. This can be

complemented by strengthening the capacity of the National and State Assemblies’

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to serve as platforms for sharing experiences and

building their technical capacity to scrutinize implementation of national budgets.

Ensure that the Office of the Auditor-General has adequate funding to perform its duties,

as determined by an independent body (e.g., the legislature or judiciary).

2 The FOI Act of 2011 gives all citizens access to government records and information about public institutions. This

Act can be invoked by citizens to access government records and is vital to improving citizen participation in the Nigerian budget process.

-10-

The shortcomings in budget participation are unlikely to be addressed if civil society in Nigeria

remains weak and is excluded from the budget process. PB programs depend on the effective

engagement of three key domestic stakeholders: government, civil society, and legislatures.

Current State of Public Finance in Nigeria

Public Financial Management (PFM) reforms have been a key aspect of the reform agenda in

Nigeria over the period since the re-establishment of democratic rule in 1999. As in many other

countries, the fundamental rationale for pursuing PFM reforms is the expectation that

improvements in how public finances are managed translates into better service delivery relative

to resources. And consequently, an improved living condition for the citizens. However, realities

of PFM in Nigeria grossly discriminate against the majority of the people and ignore their

predicaments. This is compounded by little or no benchmarking mechanism for assessing

budget performance. Budgeting largely remains the exclusive purviews of the ruling elite who

are largely power arrogates and less sensitive to the needs of citizens. This has prevented the

benefits of economic growth from reaching the poor and caused economic dislocation particular

in the formal sector where employment creation has not kept pace with a rapidly growing

workforce.

The write-off of a substantial proportion of Nigeria’s external debt in 2005/6, and relatively

strong oil prices improved the fiscal position of government substantially up to 2009. However,

large public sector wage increases in 2009 led to expenditure falling behind revenues in 2009

and 2010. A deficit re-emerged in 2013 and 2014. The collapse of oil prices during 2014 has led

to a decline in projected oil revenues from 5.8% to 3.4% of GDP, and growth is expected to fall

below 5% in 2015. The rapid expansion of government expenditure since 2006 has meant that

insufficient reserves have been built up in the Excess Crude Account (ECA) to buffer the fiscal

position against the oil price fall. The government responded to the prospect of reduced oil

revenues with measures to increase non-oil tax revenues and to contain public expenditure.3

Nigeria’s PFM performance has been significantly below that of the average of Sub-Saharan

African countries, and even further below that of Lower Middle Income Countries. A PEFA

review undertaken in 2012 recorded the following findings although an agreement was not

reached with the authorities on the findings:

:

Credibility of the budget is undermined by inability to maintain the composition of the

budget during implementation and that strategic focus of budget is adversely affected.

3 Non-debt recurrent expenditure in 2016 Budget is NGN2.65tn.

-11-

The level of transparency and comprehensiveness of fiscal reporting in Federal and

Subnational government is limited, apart from the well-publicized revenue sharing

formula and monthly disclosures of statutory allocations.

Obscure link between fiscal policy and public expenditure.

Though tax administration and the legal and regulatory framework for public

procurement are satisfactory, these have not led to implementation of the budget in an

orderly and predictable manner.

Arrangements for scrutiny of public finances are comprehensive, but not for audit follow

up.

The budget process is less participative and largely excludes the majority of the people

whose overall interest are consequently subsumed under those of the political elite. This

has resulted in a sharp increase in poverty levels as well as widening the gap between

the rich and the poor.4

The report noted that budget performance in Nigeria can be improved by adopting the following

measures:

Establishing a budgeting system that comes up with a fiscal framework that is

sustainable over the medium term and beyond.5

Provision of relevant information to the various stakeholders –especially civil society- at

the right time in order to assist in effective allocation and utilization of public resources.

The budget should be prepared on timely basis and approved by National Assembly

preferably before the beginning of financial year. This will also ensure that we have a

meaningful cash plan by the Accountant-General as required by Section 26 of Fiscal

Responsibility Act.

Allocating resources to programmes on the basis of the country’s development priorities

and programme effectiveness.

As much as possible, the citizens should be carried along by the government so that the

budget reflects their preferences which in turn should encourage prompt payment of

taxes.

1.2.1 Existing Institutional Arrangements for Budgeting in Nigeria

Nigeria has fragmented and complex institutional arrangements for the budget process, with the

Federal Ministry of Finance (FMoF) only controlling part of the process, and the National

Assembly having limited influence over revenue decisions. The 2007 Fiscal Responsibility and

4 Public Financial Management Reform Opportunities at Federal Level in Nigeria: Policy Note, a study commissioned

by the World Bank in May 2015 5 The government has taken a significant step in this regard with the establishment of the Medium Term Expenditure

Framework (MTEF).

-12-

Public Procurement Acts sought to strengthen institutional arrangements for the management of

fiscal funds and procurement processes, but these have only been implemented to a limited

extent. The legal provisions guaranteeing the autonomy of the Auditor General’s function are

also relatively weak. Furthermore, audit outcomes stemming from the Office of the Auditor

General are rarely implemented both at the federal and state levels.

Executive-legislative relations pose a particular challenge for the budget process. The process

of National Assembly scrutiny (and conflict between the executive and legislative branches) has

tended to lead to the expansion of budgeted expenditures, and long and unpredictable delays in

budget approval. Constitutional and legal arrangements around the role of the National

Assembly in the budget process are vague. In addition, significant delays and deviations from

budget occur during execution. In particular, approved budget heads are not equivalent to

funds being made available to MDAs.

While current legal provisions do not provide a strong role for the External Audit function, the

National Assembly has sweeping investigative powers. The Fiscal Responsibility Commission

also has considerable powers which are not currently being exercised. The Auditor General is

also seeking to modernise and strengthen the role of his office – including through seeking to

secure the right to make audit reports available directly to the public, rather than through the

National Assembly.

All these limit the ability of citizens to contribute to the direction of PFM in the country. Citizens’

participation in budgeting is almost non-existent. This is exacerbated by many Nigerians being

poorly informed about the sources, nature and volume of government revenue and expenditure.

This situation is not helped by the fact that the middle class as well as the majority of the poor of

the country are poorly organised and thereby unable to constitute a strong demand force on

government. As a result, government remain largely unaccountable for the management of the

country’s huge commonwealth. The result has been that that while national budgets are

increasing by the year, public utilities and infrastructure continue to deteriorate and budgets

over the years have continued to under deliver on services and infrastructure The more

government increases its budgets, the poorer the people become and the wider the gap

between the rich and the poor.

Several attempts have been made by government and development partners over the years to

improve PFM in Nigeria. These include:

The 2004 National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) which

was supposed to be a ‘home-grown’ economic development strategy focused on four

main areas: improving the macro-economic environment, pursuing structural reforms,

strengthening public expenditure management, and implementing institutional and

-13-

governance reforms (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007). The implementation of

the comprehensive economic reform programme was in four main areas:

Macroeconomic reform; structural reforms; government and institutional reforms; and

public sector reforms (Iba, 2007). Under the Macroeconomic Reforms Programme,

government adopted prudent oil price-based fiscal rule; introduced Medium Term

Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and Medium Term Sector Strategies (MTSS); improved

implementation of monetary policy by Central Bank; undertook a bank consolidation

exercise to strengthen financial sector; adopted trade liberalization policies; and

undertook the privatization of some government enterprises. One of the major

challenges was to introduce an appropriate fiscal rule to cut the link between public

expenditures and oil revenue earnings. This way, external shocks to the economy would

be minimized. Under the Structural Reforms Programmes, there has been civil service

reform, deregulation of government activities, bank-consolidation exercise to strengthen

the financial sector; trade policy reform; and privatization of some government

enterprises. Under Institutional and governance reforms, government introduced the Due

Process mechanism in public procurement; reformed public expenditure management;

adopted the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Nigeria; and

established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as well as the

Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) to address corruption in public

offices. Under public sector reform, there was a restructuring of some government

agencies and an expectation of improvements in service delivery.

The Enactment of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007) to provide the framework for the

implementation of the public sector reforms undertaken by the government. The Act,

according to the then Minister of State for Finance, Nenadi Usman, is expected to

“underpin the economic growth of the country as Nigeria’s finances will be managed at a

very high standard, and also to revolutionize the budgeting process” (The African

Economy, 2006). Although the Fiscal Responsibility Act was signed into law in 2007, the

MTSS, according to the Budget Office of the Federation (2009), has been a feature of

the budget preparation process since 2005. The Budget Office reckons that this covers

at least 80% of MDAs Expenditure (Budget Office of the Federation, 2009).

The Economic Reform and Governance Project (ERGP) is a World Bank-funded

governance project that aimed to improve the federal government’s administrative,

financial, human resource and statistical systems.6 This project concluded in 2013 and

some of its key achievements are as follows: (i) a reallocation of credit proceeds across

disbursement categories in five implementing agencies; (ii) a revision of the project

6 The World Bank-funded ERGP started in 2004 and end in 2013. Negotiations are currently underway to initiate a

second phase for this project given its welcomed achievements.

-14-

results framework for evaluating PFM performance; (iii) marked improvements in tax

policy and administration; and (iv) significant cost savings achieved from improved

procurement processes. ERGP formed the basis for the introduction of the Government

Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS). With the introduction of

GIFMIS, a new multi-dimensional Chart of Accounts (COA) has been designed.

Implementation of the new COA commenced with the 2011 budget and a Treasury

Circular has been issued directing Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of

government to adopt it in execution of the budget. The new classification system is made

up of 6 segments, namely: Administrative, Economic, Functional, Fund, Program and

Geographic segments. The COA provides a robust mechanism for the classification of

public resources under the budget as well as tracking receipts and payments during

budget execution. In particular, the new classification system seeks to support one of the

key deliverables of the government’s Economic Reform and Governance Project

(ERGP) which is the “adoption of more transparent and modern economic and financial

management systems and processes that are less prone to corruption”. The new

classification system supports all extant reporting and disclosure requirements under the

Nigerian Public Finance Management (PFM) legal framework. In addition, it has been

designed to facilitate compliance with major international public sector accounting and

reporting standards.

Treasury Single Account (TSA) was recently implemented fully in the Nigerian economy

by the current administration in order to ensure prudence and probity in the management

of financial resources. With the TSA government expects to block all loopholes and

leakages of financial resources of the government and also ensure a robust financial

management system. Although domiciled to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the TSA

ensures that the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMoF) has full control over budget

allocations, and strengthens the authority of the budget appropriation. Previously when

separate bank accounts were maintained by government MDAs, the result was often a

fragmented system, where additional cash resources that became available through

various creative, often extra-budgetary, measures augment funds provided for budgetary

appropriations.

1.2.2 Efforts to Institutionalize Participatory Budgeting in Nigeria

With the success of the Brazilian model and a growing number of other successful experiments

around the world, that have demonstrated that participation by poor citizens in budgetary

decision-making can lead to sharp increases in the reach and coverage of essential services,

particularly to the poor, a growing number of programmes at reforming Nigeria’s PFM have

attempted to introduce participatory budgeting. For instance, President Olusegun Obasanjo in

2001 formally launched participatory budgeting in government through the creation of

-15-

Community Development Associations (CDAs). Its aim was to acquaint citizens with new

thinking in fiscal management and raise the general awareness of citizens regarding their right

to a better life. This new initiative was intended to give the citizens more opportunities to better

understand their obligations towards the government as well as create a framework of inter-

dependence between the executive, legislature and the judicial system of government as a way

of boosting citizens and civil society’s participation in budgetary engagement and processes.

But the idea never worked in reality the as the ruling elite retains their hold on the monopoly of

the budget process and the entire apparatus for PFM. Development partners were not left out in

supporting the government’s reform agenda. The European Union provided support through

various projects including the Support to Reforming Institutions Programme (SRIP) aimed at

encouraging budget reform and transparency and citizen’s participation in the budget process.

DFID’s Public Sector Accountability and Governance Programme (PSAGP) also supported the

government’s reform agenda and aimed to improve citizen’s participation in governance.

Since these initial attempts, there have been pockets of efforts -mainly by development partners

supporting CSOs- to introduce participatory budgeting into the Nigeria polity. However, most of

these efforts are small, brief, short-lived and also focus exclusively on CSOs as their main

vehicles of delivery many of whom do not have the mobilizing power needed to activate the

citizens to challenge the status quo. Consequently, these initiatives have not been able to make

any significant impact. Currently, over 90% of Nigerians remain excluded from active

participation in budgeting.

1.3 Statement of Problem and Opportunities

In the last two decades, especially with the advent of globalisation and liberalisation,

governments in every country saw partnership, as a key governance initiative and as an

important methodology for pursuing economic development. Mostly driven by public/private

partnerships, these practices took different forms in different countries. Guthrie (2003)

summarises public sector partnerships within the context of what has come to be known as New

Public Management (NPM) initiative. According to this account, throughout the twentieth

century, the public service tradition of the politically disinterested, aloof, ‘expert’ bureaucracy7

was slowly eroding in many of the developed nations as it became mired in crises related to the

growing costs of public services due to the increasing scale of provision and alleged

inefficiencies.8 In Nigeria as in other developing countries, these arrangements that often were

maintained as a colonial legacy degenerated into elite-based self-serving institutions serving the

7 Felts, A. A., and Jos, P. H. (1996) The Contemporary Challenges to the Administrative State: A Weberian Analysis,

Journal of Management History, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 21-36. 8 Guthrie, D. M. (2003). Engaged Governance: An institutional Approach to Government/Community Engagement, A

Background Paper. Prepared for and presented at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Interregional Workshop on “Engaged Governance”. Colombo, Sri Lanka. December 9-11, 2003

-16-

interests of their own and those of the ruling clique, in a collusive manner. 9During this time, the

emerging patron-client-agent nexus perpetrated through the elite bureaucracies and non-

accountable political regimes that made the rich richer and the poor poorer, was regarded by

some as a crisis of “coalition of indifference.”10

Barring the differences in scale and extent, governments both in the developing as well as in the

developed countries, were perceived to lack accountability leading to increasing community

dissatisfaction and as a result, demands for alternative means of delivering those services also

emerged. Many in the West saw privatisation as an option of allowing greater public choice.11

The latter was exacerbated further by the forces of globalisation and liberalisation. While

privatisation did help in stimulating economic growth and reducing government costs in many

countries and indeed, more recently globalisation and liberalisation also contributed to the

prosperity of many nations and within nations the communities, these initiatives equally led to,

what some would argue, a situation of “inexorable marginalisation”12

Many Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are falling behind and in a number of cases, the

emerging marginalisation process contributed to the disempowerment of the poor, the

disadvantaged and the ethnic minorities from the mainstream of the societies. In these

situations, the poor and the disadvantaged are being side-lined and the political economy of the

electoral governance of some of these countries seem to leave insufficient space for the

representation of the interests of these marginalised groups into the decision-making processes

of the state. These emerging challenges are prompting many to recognize the deficiencies in

the functioning of representational democracy and are looking for alternative ways, something

that is beyond the formal institutions of representations, to a public policy-making process where

citizens, especially the poor and the disadvantaged can be mainstreamed. A report by

Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) noted that the period of intense liberalization

and extensive use of market-based solutions in developing countries accompanied the rise of

asymmetrical partnerships, where the public sector became a minor or a disadvantaged partner.

These partnerships, prevalent during 1980s and 1990s with the rise of neo-liberal values

9 Khan, M. Adil (2004a) Pro-Poor Policy Processes and Institutions: A Political Economic Discussion. Conference

Publication: Eastern Regional Organization of Public Administration 2003. ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/68. 10

Korten, David C. (1983) Bureaucracy and the Poor: Closing the Gap. Kumarian. London. 1983. Ackroyd, S. (1995), From public administration to public sector management Understanding Contemporary Change in British public services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol, 8, No. 2, pp 19-32; Esquith, S. (1997) John Rawls and the recent history of public administration. Journal of Management History, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp 328-341. 12

Dowlah, Caf (2004) Backwaters of Global Prosperity. How Forces of Globalization and GATT/WTO Trade Regimes Contribute to the Marginalization of the World’s Poorest Nations. Praeger. London 2004

-17-

strongly propagated by the West, often did little to serve the interests of those that lacked the

effective purchasing power, namely, the poor.13

These solutions of the West (i.e., private sector ‘solutions’ to public sector ‘problems’),

emphasised strategic planning, performance measurement, accountability, results,

purchaser/provider split, contracting out and ‘doing more with less.14 These managerial tools

drawn from the corporate sector were transferred, sometime without much thought to the public

sector. This juxtaposition seemed to have been fraught with one major flaw; the public became

connected now to the State as “consumers with the ability to choose and complain [although]

not the ability to proactively shape services.”15 Result has been that the interests of the

powerless, the hard-core poor, the ethnic minority, the aged etc. got side-lined and the existing

democratic institutions, the electoral democracy, that got hijacked by the rich and the lobbyists

created no space for the marginalised. These emerging challenges started, for the first time, to

prompt many to see the limitations of electoral governance and to recognize the importance of

linking public administration, social equity, and ethics with citizen participation.16

There are now two billion people on earth who continue to remain poor and most alarmingly, the

numbers are increasing. An Oxfam report further noted that 62 people own more than half the

world. What is equally telling is that during the 1990s, many developing countries experienced

significant economic reversals or stagnation which has impacted negatively on the MDGs. The

Oxfam report An Economy for the 1%, shows that the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s

population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010, a drop of 38 percent. This has occurred

despite the global population increasing by around 400 million people during that period.

Meanwhile, the wealth of the richest 62 has increased by more than half a trillion dollars to

$1.76tn.

Many attribute this falling performance to weak governance institutions, entrenched corruption

and a post-colonial legacy of elitist public administration and indeed, under-developed human

capital (de Alcantara, 1998). It is, therefore, not so surprising that when the same market-

managerialist solutions of the West were applied to the developing countries that contained

serious systemic problems, the outcome was that many of these initiatives either failed to

produce any tangible results or yielded only marginal benefits. Furthermore, prompted by the

Bretton Woods institutions, many developing governments withdrew or decreased government

13

See, Strengthening Public Administration for the Millennium Development Goals: A Partnership Building Approach. UN Committee of Experts. E/C.16/2004/5 14

Hood, c (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 3-19. 15

Corrigan, P. and Joyce, P. (1997) Five arguments for deliberative democracy, Political Studies, 48(5), pp. 947-969 de Alcantara, C.H. (1998) Uses 16

Esquith, S. (1997) John Rawls and the recent history of public administration. Journal of Management History, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp 328-341.

-18-

funding in social development leading to lower health and education facilities, especially for the

poor. Being powerless and voiceless the vulnerable groups had little or no means to either

express their concerns or make their voices heard in any effective manner or to take the

recourse of an institutional means to press for their demands. It became apparent that in many

developing countries cuts in health budget for instance, mainly included cuts in preventive

medicine and not the curative — the former benefits the poor whereas, the latter the rich. In

general, frustrated with the continuous failure of the state in addressing citizen’s needs in an

equal and fair manner and in recognition of the perceived challenges faced by an introverted

public administration and the inadequacies in the functioning of representative democracies, a

demand for a re-examination of the existing governance arrangements, particularly that of

policy-making processes became imminent.

Given the aforementioned problems, many looked for solutions that are more citizen-based and

accountable, especially for those matters that are directly linked to the rights and welfare of the

poor (Merrien, 1988). Furthermore, the nagging problem of poverty and growing inequality as

well as the threat to environmental sustainability, also prompted many to demand greater legal

space in governance for the citizens. More specifically, demand was made for a direct say in the

management and distribution of public resources. Many see these emerging demands of direct

engagements or what some call ‘participatory publics’ as nothing but a quest for an institutional

option that is conducive to achieving ‘good governance’ and ‘rights-based development’ in a

society (Wampler and Avritzer, 2004).

In Nigeria, this call for greater citizen’s participation is hampered by a budgeting system that is

not transparent and a weak electorate that is poorly informed on the issue of public finance with

limited knowledge of how government generates and utilizes revenue, especially taxes. This

limits citizens’ ability to hold government accountable. As a consequence, the desired

redistributive effect of oil revenue, taxation and other resources is not being experienced,

leading to increased inequality. Programmes have been introduced to try and address the issue,

as mentioned elsewhere but the lack of a recognised rallying point for citizens to unite and

effectively demand transparency and accountability has limited progress. While many agree that

direct citizen participation in public affairs is the way of the future, the challenge remains as to

how to operationalise citizen/government dialoguing and participatory budgeting in

implementing ‘engaged governance’ practice within a democracy.

A window of opportunity presents itself with the new Nigerian government’s town hall meetings.

The present government has instituted ‘Town Hall Meetings’ as a means of informing citizens on

activities of government. This shows an openness to engage with civil society in a way never

witnessed before in governance in Nigeria. This project will build on this opportunity to advance

PB.

-19-

1.4 Objectives of the Participatory Budget Project

The underlying basis for this project is strengthening accountability and transparency in public

resource utilization. To this end, these are the main objectives of this project:

Objective 1: To strengthen the capacity of NLC & its Allies in participatory budgeting.

Objective 2: To stimulate national discourse on targeted public service delivery with a

view to lifting many Nigerians out of poverty.

Objective 3: To improve access to public service delivery for the poor, i.e. To ensure

efficient and pro poor budget implementation

Objective 4: To create mechanisms for strengthening engagement between government

and citizens on budget-related issues, i.e. putting citizens in the driving seat of the

budget formulation and implementation process.

Objective 5: To establish effective mechanisms for tracking government spending at the

national and state levels.

-20-

2. The Oxfam/NLC Intervention

As an organisation at the forefront of ending poverty, Oxfam recognises that the vast majority of

the Nigerian people’s lives will improve only when the resources of the country are equitably

distributed through a transparent, inclusive, pro-poor budget system. This can only happen in

Nigeria when:

The budget reflects the expectations and development priorities of the vast majority of

citizens.

The strategic focus and composition of the budget is maintained during implementation.

The level of transparency and comprehensiveness of fiscal reporting in Federal and

Subnational government is high.

Higher direct link between fiscal policy and public expenditure.

The implementation of the budget is done in an orderly and predictable manner.

Budget execution and financial reporting improves and allows for better reallocation of

resources optimally.

Arrangements for audit follow-ups are comprehensive.

Citizens are involved and engaged throughout the budget process, i.e. from formulation

to actual implementation.

All these can be achieved when there is greater citizen’s participation in the budgeting process.

This approach will enhance fiscal responsibility in Nigeria. Past attempts at introducing PB in

Nigeria have not been successful for the following reasons:

The projects has been small, brief and short lived.

The projects have not been able to activate citizens to challenge the status quo.

Lack of synergy between the government and relevant stakeholders especially during

the budget formulation stage.

Excessive focus on the demand-side facet of the problem (i.e. citizens, CSOs) with

limited emphasis on the engagement of the supply-side element (i.e. the government).

Oxfam hopes to address the shortcomings of past projects by adopting a different approach to

PB in Nigeria by borrowing from the Brazilian model where participatory budgeting (PB) in some

Municipal Councils in Brazil have enabled citizens to present their demands and priorities for

civic improvement. With the Brazilian model, people are able to influence -through discussions

and negotiation- budget allocations made by their municipalities. Budget allocations for public

welfare works are made only after the recommendations of people’s delegates and approval by

the city council. The positive impact of PB in Brazil is a noticeable improvement in the

accessibility and quality of various public welfare amenities in those municipalities that have

-21-

adopted it. The participation and influence of people belonging to low-income groups in the

budget allocation process are proof of their empowerment.

The success of the Brazilian model, it is recognised stems largely from the Brazilian Workers

Party (PT) winning the municipal elections in Porto Alegre in 1989 and proceeding to

implement an experiment of decentralised decision-making in the city. In the absence of a truly

representative Labour Party winning elections in Nigeria, to replicate the model, Oxfam will

partner with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) to build a movement of active citizens able to

engage with the agencies of government in Nigeria and foster a sustainable platform as a

rallying point for budget reform and participatory budgeting. The NLC presents a ready

institution and platform for this because of its national spread and ability to mobilize and rally

workers and the general populace to action to effect change at critical times and in key areas.

However, their ability to do this effectively is seriously hampered by the lack of capacity and

structure. This project will address this and institutionalise PB in Nigeria using the following

approach (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Theory of Change in the Proposed PB Project

Problem Solution Activities Output Impact

The Project

The Big Picture

DISCONNECT

BETWEEN PUBLIC

BUDGETS &

PEOPLE

Few Opportunities

for citizens to shape

public Budgets

Budgets often fail to

address citizens’ real

needs

PARTICIPATORY

BUDGETING (PB)

Empower people to

directly decide public

budgets through

robust and sustained

PB processes

PARTNER WITH NLC

TO DEEPEN AND

INSTITUTIONALISE

PB

Build Capacities Build networks Pilot PB in select MDAs. PB networks to consist of relevant stakeholders.

EMPOWERED

CITIZENS/IMPROVE

D SERVICE

DELIVERY

Active Citizens Open, effective and efficient governance Improved service delivery

BROKEN

RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN

GOVERNMENT

AND THE PEOPLE

Low Trust in

Government

Few Meaningful

opportunities to

impact government

INNOVATIONS IN

DEMOCRACY &

CIVIC

ENGAGEMENT

Create opportunities

for empowered

citizens

REPLICATE &

EXPAND

INNOVATIONS

Develop programmes

and actions that

entrench and spread

public participation in

governance

MORE INCLUSIVE

AND

PARTICIPATORY

DEMOCRACY

Renewed trust in

Government

Broad participation

that meaningfully

impacts governance

and democracy

A JUST NIGERIA

WITHOUT

POVERTY

A pro-poor democratic system were citizens are at the heart of governance

AN ENTRENCHED

DEMOCRACY

A democratic and

just Government

with citizens’

participation as the

norm

Improved reach of

public services to

the most

vulnerable groups

-22-

2.1 Technical Approach For the Oxfam/NLC project, the citizen participation and pro-poor budgeting being proposed will

be underpinned more clearly by the agenda of poverty reduction and social development and

the processes of decision-making that provide inputs to the formulation and implementation of

strategies that will be engaging and citizen-based. There are two main types of participatory

budgeting programs namely: (i) participatory budgeting public works; and (ii) participatory

budgeting thematics. This project focuses on participatory budgeting thematics, i.e. the software

component of a citizen-led budget program. Consequently, this project focuses on general

spending policies; these policies focus on more general trends, such as budget allocations for

different capital and social development projects. Improving transparency in the budget process

will be achieved by enhancing the capacity of civil society and pressure groups as it relates to

the budget process in Nigeria. Any achievements recorded in this regard are expected to trickle

down to the broader citizenry, i.e. improved public service delivery and pro-poor policies.

Based on the Brazilian model, the main features of PB include:

A geographical structure that breaks down existing administrative boundaries facilitating

citizen inclusion, citizen participation and involvement decision-making and pro-poor

budgeting.

Regularly scheduled meetings and debates in each geographical unit, to engage citizens

in discussions to decide strategic priorities for capital investments and services, develop

actions plans and evaluate and monitor on-going activity, in a manner which

complements existing representative democratic structures.

A cycle of activities closely following the budgeting cycle which provides a framework for

participation, planning and implementation.

A network of organizations involved in capacity-building, information dissemination,

public communication, and citizen mobilization.

Target Groups

a) Beneficiaries: Nigerian workers, CSOs (e.g. Centre for Public Policy Alternatives

(CPPA), BudgIT), local communities, market women, small scale farmers, artisans,

traders, local governments, MDAs, private sectors etc.

b) Stakeholders: NLC, CSOs, Oxfam, government, Legislators, private sectors,

professional bodies, regulatory bodies (i.e. Public Complaints Commission, Consumer

Protection Council (CPC) etc), trade associations, Pressure groups etc.

Geographical Location

a) National level

b) 3 states

-23-

The project will be divided into three phases. Phase one will comprise of research (i.e. baseline

surveys, situational analysis, political economy analysis), capacity building for the NLC and

relevant pressure groups, and stakeholder consultations; Phase two will focus on citizens’

mobilization and NLC pilots to practicalize PB; and Phase three will focus on implementing a

participative budget cycle in close coordination with the NLC and the national and state

assemblies. Comprehensive explanation of the expectations for the three project phases is

discussed subsequently.

2.1.1 Phase 1: Research, Capacity building, and stakeholder Consultations

As noted earlier, this project focuses on the software component of participatory budgeting, i.e.

budget thematics. Phase I of this project will build the capacity of the NLC –at the national and

state levels- on the Nigerian budget process in order to strengthen their skills, competencies on

participatory budgeting; thus, positioning them to act as champions of PB in Nigeria. This

approach is critical to sustaining the outcomes of this project following project completion.

The activities under this section include:

Research: Situational analyses, baseline surveys, political economy analysis, and

stakeholder mapping will be conducted at the inception stage of this project, and results

from these critical activities will be used to adapt successful elements of the Brazilian PB

model to the unique circumstances of Nigeria.

Stakeholder Consultation: Although Oxfam has been in conversation with the NLC over

this project, a necessary first step of this project will involve stakeholder consultations

with state chapters of the NLC, other trade unions (i.e. TUC), and professional bodies to

intimate them formally on this project and secure their buy-in. In addition, visits will also

be made to other key stakeholders such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO)

and relevant government agencies (i.e. Consumer Protection Council (CPC), Public

Complaints Commission (PCC) etc) to gain their support.

Selection and Training of NLC Officials: In consultation with the leadership of the NLC,

NLC officials –together with representatives of CSOs and community mobilization

officers- who will play a key role in implementing this project and in promoting PB

beyond the project completion date will be identified for training based on pre-

established criteria.

Capacity Building/Training: Intensive training on budget formulation, budget monitoring

and budget analysis will be provided to the NLC officials to aid their understanding of the

budget process. Furthermore, they will be trained on strategic communications,

campaigning and community mobilization to enhance their ability to carry along other

trade unions, such as the Trade Union Congress (TUC). The strategic communications

-24-

and community mobilization activities are intended to enhance the sustainability of

outcomes following project completion by equipping the NLC with the human resource

capacity to promote and continue PB-related activities in Nigeria. It is expected that this

project can be scaled up to involve other states who demonstrate commitment towards

improving PFM.

Campaign Development: Once the capacity of the NLC has been built, Oxfam and NLC

will jointly develop a campaign for popularising PB at the national level and in the target

states.

Plan of Action: A plan of action will be developed by Oxfam/NLC to clearly spell out the

roadmap for the campaign. This will also include who does what amongst various

stakeholders: Oxfam, NLC, NGOs, the media and professional bodies.

2.1.2 Phase 2: Citizens’ Mobilization Phase 2 builds on achievements recorded in Phase 1. This phase focuses on building a

coalition of CSOs and citizens for promoting PB in Nigeria. The success of this project will

depend on the effective mobilisation of citizens to participate actively in the budget process and

to demand accountability. Furthermore, this phase focuses on identifying champions and

strengthening the capacity of relevant CSOs in PB. At the end of this phase, a coordination

mechanism between CSOs and the NLC will be established to drive the national discourse on

citizen-led budgeting. The proposed activities for this phase include:

Town Hall Meetings: Following the development of the project action plan, ‘town hall

meetings’ will be held across the 6 geo political zones to which NLC state chapters,

NGOs, the media and professional bodies (COREN, NMA), regulatory institutions (i.e.

CPC, PCC) and pressure groups (i.e. NULGE) will be invited. The town hall meetings

are intended to intimate stakeholders on PB, and secure much needed buy-in for the

operationalisation of the action plan. Furthermore, through the town hall meetings,

stakeholder representatives will be identified to be part of the PB Network.

PB Network: The proposed PB network will consist of key stakeholders, such as

representatives of the NLC, Oxfam, representatives of relevant NGOs, key community

members, the media, professional bodies (COREN, NMA etc.), pressure groups (i.e.

NULGE), and regulatory bodies (i.e. CPC, PCC). The aim of the network is to engage

and mobilize Nigerian citizens to put pressure on the government to institutionalize PB in

the budget formulation and implementation processes. Oxfam will ensure that there is

synergy with existing networks that share the same agenda with this project.

Campaign: A formal targeted campaign to demand improved PFM and PB will be

launched. The aim of the campaign is to secure the critical mass needed to demand for

improved public finance management and the institutionalization of PB in Nigeria. The

-25-

campaigns will particularly target the National Planning Commission, the Budget Office,

the National Assembly, and one MDA that will be agreed upon at the national level. At

the state level, three states will be identified for a pilot and the campaign will target the

State’s Planning Commission,17 the Budget Office, the State Assembly and three MDAs

– Health, Education, Agriculture and Women Affairs.18

2.1.3 Phase 3: Implementing a Participatory Budget Cycle

The outcome of a successful campaign is that the government accepts to open the space for

participatory budgeting. This second phase of the project will be to support a government pilot

to practicalize and implement a PB cycle. Below are the steps for Phase 3:

Capacity Building for National and Focal State Government Officials: For PB to be successful

government has to be seen to be driving it. Therefore, the implementation of the PB Cycle must

have government on the front seat. However, as PB will be new to government, their capacity

must be built to effectively deliver it. In addition to training in PB, training will also be provided

on communication skills as government staff members also need to refine their communication

skills in order to be able to present citizens with accurate information, and also need to hear

what citizens have to say.

Communications Campaign: Following the training, PB will be launched through an extensive

communications campaign, designed to disseminate information on the PB program and

mobilize all stakeholders to participate in the activities. Oxfam/NLC will support the Nigerian

government in the design and implementation of PB campaigns that seek to get the citizens

more involved in the Nigeria budget process.

Capacity Building for Citizens and their Delegates: Participatory Budgeting depends largely on

the capacity of civil society to engage in an informed and constructive dialogue, and prepare

budgets. A capacity-building strategy that transfers skills to the relevant PB stakeholders is

essential. To ensure that citizens are prepared to bring meaningful contributions to the

budgeting process, Oxfam/NLC will carry out training for the PB network members who will act

as representatives of the various stakeholder groups. They will in turn build the capacity of their

members to be able to engage in budget dialogue.

Pre-PB Workshop: Pre town hall meetings with be organised for the PB network and other

stakeholders to train them on budget preparation. Using the previous year’s budget as a

17

The Joint Planning Board, which is the umbrella body for all the state planning commissions, serves as a useful platform for promoting PB-related activities in the target states. 18

Decisions about target MDAs at the state level may change based on the preference of State Steering Committees.

-26-

sample, the workshop will reformulate the budget based on real needs of the citizens and use it

as a basis for discussion during the PB workshop.

PB Prioritization Workshops: These are the workshops that practicalize PB. Here PB network

members, other members of the public who wish you and government will participate in PB

workshops, where government and citizens prioritise government spending and budget. These

workshops will take place in the FCT and focal states targeting the selected MDAs.

Budget Finalization Support: Oxfam and NLC will support the focal MDAs to finalise their

budgets based on the outcome of the prioritization workshops.

PB Validation Workshops: A second set of workshops between the PB Networks and

government will be organised where the finalised budget will be shared to ensure it fits with

prioritises identified during the prioritization workshops.

Budget Defence at the State and National Assemblies: Recognising that the legislature has a

tendency to substantially change budgets, the established PB networks will regularly

communicate with the legislature on the progress of the project. The PB networks led by the

NLC will be supported to participate in all budget defence hearings at Federal and State

Assembles, and will raise alarm on any changes that jeopardises the priorities set by citizens.

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluating (PM&E): This will consist of citizens and government

jointly monitoring budget execution and implementation of public works and projects.

Unforeseen budget cuts, poor revenue forecasts, and corruption can affect the percentage of

the budget that is actually executed. Consequently, it becomes critical that citizens and

government closely monitor budget execution to ensure that the budget is implemented

according to the law. Participatory monitoring and evaluation yields the greatest results when

stakeholders have the opportunity to discuss and plan the PM&E from the outset. To ensure

effective monitoring and evaluation, the following steps will be taken:

M&E teams: M&E teams will be set up to monitor state and federal projects for the

MDAs targeted. The PB Network will agree which projects will be monitored based on

development priorities identified.

Training: A series of training sessions will be conducted for the monitoring group

members to provide them with adequate skills. Training topics will include monitoring

procurement, inspection and evaluation of public works implementation etc.

M&E: Each M&E team will be provided with a small fund to support the conduct of

quarterly M&E activities. These teams will provide reports which the PB Network will

feed back to the MDA. The NLC will raise alarm on projects that are not going according

to plan and will put pressure on the MDA to ensure compliance to the budget.

-27-

2.2 Intended Benefits of the Project

Based on the Brazilian model’s achievement, we are confident that PB will have a tangible

impact on improving the quality of life of the Nigerian people. We expect public services to

significantly improve; administrative costs substantially reduced; and improvements in

government management of resources. The realizable benefits of this project are as follows:

More focused representation by the NLC: This project will greatly improve the NLC’s

ability to represent the Nigerian masses. The budget is the single most important

document through which government influences the lives of people. By institutionalising

PB, the NLC will ensure that the real needs of the people are being met by government.

Increased effectiveness in budget targeting: In many cases, public budgets do not reflect

the real priorities of citizens, particularly the poor. Scarce public resources are often

spent on the wrong goods or the wrong group of beneficiaries. PB will help match citizen

needs with public resources.

Increased revenue capacity: The PB public meetings will provide citizens and

government with an opportunity to address local tax and services fee issues which would

ultimately lead to increased revenue.

Improved efficiency in public resource management: PBs will ensure improved budget

execution efficiency particularly in purchase of goods and contracts. Citizen group

monitoring of the procurement process will significantly increase transparency in

procurement processes, which is one of the most problematic areas of the financial

fiduciary system.

Improved quality of public works: The creation of citizen’s budget monitoring groups will

improve the quality of public investments and infrastructure maintenance.

Inclusion of vulnerable groups: Vulnerable groups such as poor women, people living

with disabilities and the aged do not have a strong political voice, and are often

overlooked in the allocation of budget resources. PB will help amplify their voices and

make their needs better addressed.

Improved transparency and accountability: Often citizens do not have access to

government budget information. In some cases, citizens perceive budgets as too

complex to fully comprehend. PB will offer an opportunity for government to demystify

the budget for citizens, and to be more transparent and accountable in public resource

management.

-28-

Promotion of social inclusion, poverty reduction, and empowerment: The traditional

budgeting process can often contribute to social exclusion and poverty due to political

interests, lobbies, rent seeking, and powerful interests. By increasing the voice of

ordinary citizens and the most vulnerable groups, PB can potentially re-direct public

investments towards basic services in poor neighbourhoods. The social learning and

civic mobilization mechanisms embedded in PB helps empower vulnerable groups to

increase their voice in budget decisions.

2.3 Project Risks/Challenges

Irrespective of the perceived benefits of this project, there are attendant risks and challenges

that may affect in the implementation of this project. These limitations may constrain the overall

impact of PB initiatives on social justice, public learning, and administrative reform. Oxfam is

aware of these risks and has identified possible mitigation measures for addressing these. The

risks and risk mitigation measures are outlined below:

Table 1: Project Risks & Mitigation Measures

s/n Risks Risk Mitigation Measures 1. Lack of government’s buy and cooperation: PB

will not be effective without government buy in and government is often resistant to change and maybe unwilling to truly open the budget process to citizens.

Strong advocacy to relevant government agencies. The involvement of NLC in this project we believe with mitigate this risk as government appreciates the NLC’s capacity for positive disruption. The project will also create rewards and incentives for states and agencies that are receptive and open to PB.

2 Lack of citizen’s buy in and cooperation: Citizens groups are becoming fatigued from various reform programmes that have not achieved goals and as such, are less inclined to participate in projects that do not have tangible results like road construction etc

This will be mitigated against by the NLC’s involvement, strong advocacy and the M&E component of the project where citizens will see the direct impact of their involvement in the budget process.

3. Failure to implement decisions and recommendations emanating from open discussion forums and budget tracking reports.

The success of this project hinges on securing much needed political will at both the national and state levels. Phase 3 of this project deals with securing the commitment of the government –through engagement with national and state assemblies, and government MDAs- to the tenets of PB.

4. Outcomes achieved are short-lived. This will be addressed by developing long-term planning. In the course of this project, a project sustainability plan will be developed. This plan will outline modalities for ensuring that positive achievements are sustained long after the agreed project completion date.

5. Excessive emphasis on local issues and local public offices, i.e. stakeholders involved in the PB process tend to spend too much time and energy on the intricacies of local public policies.

To address this particular limitation, this PB project will focus on engagement with the national and state levels of government. Given that Nigeria operates a federal system of government, this project’s objectives can only be achieved if the government commitment is secured at the national (i.e. NASS) and state levels (i.e. state assemblies).

-29-

6. NLC Commitment: factional leadership in the NLC presents a challenge to effective implementation of this project.

Despite this problem, Oxfam has received assurances from the NLC that this issue is almost being resolved. The added interest of ITUC Africa in this project also gives legitimacy to any commitment obtained from the NLC for this project.

2.4 Results Framework & Administrative Structure

2.4.1 Expected Project Results (in chronological order)

Result 1: Transparent budgeting and expenditure processes, at the federal and 3 focal

states that reflect budget priorities including gender bases budgeting identified through PB,

and serve as a binding guide to their implementation, using the prudently estimated

resources available.

Rationale: This result is intended to influence the attainment of optimum resource allocation

and management in the states leading to improved service delivery outcomes and ultimately

poverty reduction.

Result 2: Improved awareness among the citizens about budget issues in Nigeria.

Rationale: Increase the level of public awareness about budget issues in Nigeria and

encourage the citizenry to hold public officers accountable for their actions and decisions.

Result 3: NLC and CSOs’ capacity in budget analysis and monitoring strengthened.

Rationale: The result is to improve the capacity of the NLC and other civil society

stakeholders to understand, use, monitor and evaluate the budget to the benefit of the

communities in a manner that ensures participation, transparency and commitment to the

budget, which directly and indirectly leads to public accountability and anti-corruption.

Result 4: Improved transparency and accountability on the part of government for the

allocation and use public financial resources.

Rationale: The key objective of public financial management in Nigeria is to make the

process more transparent, accountable and efficient such that citizens get value for their

common resources managed by government. Citizens’ capacity will be built to on public

finance management.

Results 5: Established mechanisms for tracking government expenditure at all levels of

government.

Rationale: One of the ways of encouraging citizens’ participation in the Nigerian budget

process is improving access to budget information. Ease of access to such information is

intended to increase public interest in how public resources –particularly tax revenues- are

utilized by the government at the national, state, and local levels.

-30-

Table 2: Timelines for the Participatory Budget Project

s/n Activities Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1 Design of Three year annual action plans

2 Drafting of monitoring & evaluation plans

3 Identification of key stakeholders for PB project

4 Awareness visits to NLC Headquarters

5 Awareness visits to selected NLC state chapters

6 Establish Project Steering Committee

7 Design of Training Programs for NLC officials & CSOs

8 Training of NLC Officials on PB & budget tracking

9 Training of selected CSOs on PB & budget tracking

10 Institute PB operational procedures in Federal & State

NLC chapters

11 Conduct baseline survey to assess the budget analysis

and monitoring capacity of citizens, the NLC and other

identified stakeholders.

12 Design advocacy campaigns to popularize PB

13 Implementation of advocacy campaigns

14 Community mobilization in 3 states through LGs

15 Evaluation of campaign effectiveness

16 Project Progress Assessment/Mid-Term Review

17 Establish PB Networks

18 Conduct readability assessment to evaluate ease of

access to budget-related information in government MDAs

at the national and state level.

19 Conduct systematic review of PFM processes and

expenditure management in the 3 focal states.

20 Organize open PB prioritization workshops-Federal &

State

21 Organize high-level Project Steering Committee

22 Organize second PB workshop for NLC officials & CSOs

23 Organize PB validation workshops for PB networks

24 Organize Federal-level discussion forum between PB

network & representatives of the National Assembly

25 Organize state-level discussion forums involving state

assembly members, PB network & CSOs

26 Liaise with donor agencies to validate recommended

coordination mechanisms between the national & state

assemblies, i.e. through PACs

27 Secure agreement between PSC, PB networks and

legislature on appropriate frameworks for publicizing

budget-related information.

28 Central PB Project Review involving all stakeholders

29 Impact evaluation of PB project

-31-

2.4.2 Project Administrative Structure

The expected outcomes together with capacity requirements will be taken into consideration when

designing the administration structure for the PB project. A centralized organizational structure is

proposed for this project given the need to ensure that state-level activities align with the overriding

development objectives. The Project Management Unit (PMU) will be based in Abuja with Project

Support Units (PSUs) in the 3 pilot states. The PMU will closely oversee the activities of the PSUs –

including verification and approval of procurement requests; establishing fiduciary controls over the

use of funds disbursed to PSUs; and conducting field-based supervision missions to assess project

implementation progress in the target states- and ensure that their activities and annual workplans

align to the main objectives of this project. The PMU liaises directly with the NLC Headquarters

through the appointed NLC National Coordinator while the PSU liaises with the NLC state officers.

The NLC National Coordinator is largely responsible for securing ownership and buy-in in the 3 pilot

states. Figure 2 outlines the proposed organizational structure for this project:

-32-

Figure 2: Proposed Organizational Structure for the Participatory Budget Project (Core Implementation Team)

Project Management Unit (PMU)

Project Director

M&E Manager Communications

Manager

Project Coordinator

NLC Project Coordinator

Finance & Procurement

Manager

Project Manager

PSU 1

Project Manager

PSU 2

Project Manager

PSU 3

Fin. & Proc.

Officer

M&E Officer Comm. Officer

Community

Mobilization Officers

Fin. & Proc.

Officer M&E Officer Comm. Officer

Community

Mobilization Officers

Fin. & Proc.

Officer M&E Officer

Comm.

Officer

Community

Mobilization Officers

NLC State Officer 1 NLC State Officer 2 NLC State Officer 3

-33-

Based on Figure 2, the PMU will oversee the activities of the PSUs- each headed by a project

manager- in the three pilot states. In addition to the project manager, each PSU will consist of

an M&E officer, finance officer, and communications officer. For the purposes of effective

project implementation, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established to strategically

secure much needed government buy-in and ownership of this project. The PSC will consist of

the following: the PMU; representatives of the NLC headquarters; and relevant representatives

of CSOs. The PSC will meet periodically –quarterly or bi-annually- to discuss project

implementation progress and make changes where necessary to address any challenges

encountered.

2.4.3 Planning and Organisation of the Project

The project will be managed by Oxfam’s Good Governance Programme (GGP) team through a

dedicated Project Director. The Project Director will be a member of Oxfam’s GGP and will

report to the Associate Country Director of Oxfam Novib. As already established, three PSUs

will be created in 3 pilot states. Each state will have a Project Manager who will be responsible

for the deliverables for that state (see Figure 2). The GGP and the PSUs will implement the

programme on the basis of programme estimates.

The Associate Country Director, Oxfam Novib will act as project coordinator and will oversee

project implementation activities in coordination with the NLC and other relevant stakeholders.

Oxfam will provide administrative support for this project and is responsible for monitoring,

evaluation, and reporting all project-related activities. Furthermore, a Project Officer (PO) will be

appointed by the NLC at the national level and paid by the project. The role of the PO is to

ensure that the NLC participates fully in the project. This is required for the sustainability of

outcomes following project completion. Furthermore, three State Officers will also be appointed

by the NLC to coordinate its participation in the focal states. These POs -both at the national

and state levels- will support efforts to bring the government and other relevant stakeholders on

board.

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will ensure coherence in the implementation of the

programme, assessing progress and providing advice. State-level Steering Committees (SSC)

will promote and monitor the implementation of the project at state level.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Oxfam and the NLC will be signed to

formalize the relationship and will form the basis for the following:

Provide a partnership framework for mutual obligations.

Specify the roles and responsibilities as well as clarify all commitments of Oxfam and the

NLC for the implementation of the project.

Clarify the roles of and relations between the steering committees, Oxfam and the NLC.

-34-

2.4.4 Core Implementation Team

The proposed principal management mechanism for this PB project is the ‘Core Implementation

Team (CIT)’. The CIT is composed of the following personnel: project coordinator; project

director; project managers for each state, i.e. each PSU; M&E Manager and Officers;

Procurement & Finance Manager and Officers; Communication Manager and officers; NLC

national coordinator and NLC state officers. The office of the PSUs will be domiciled to the state

chapter offices of the NLC.

The CIT will be responsible for the day-to-day operational management of the project in addition

to developing strategy, operationalizing coordination between federal and state-level activities,

and project delivery. The CIT will possess the requisite expertise and experience in managing

governance projects and coordinating project administrative functions. The CIT will comprise of

the project director (who oversees the activities of the PMU team, the NLC project coordinator,

and the project managers of the three PSUs). The project director reports directly to the Oxfam

Associate Country Director who is the Project Coordinator. Each PSU is headed by the project

manager and is made up of a finance officer, a procurement officer and communications officer.

The CIT will equally be responsible for the following critical activities:

Overall delivery of the PB project.

Coordinating the activities of the PSUs in the following areas: design and implementation

of advocacy campaigns, i.e. advocacy and networking; developing operating modalities

for involving relevant stakeholders in project implementation, i.e. liaising with

stakeholders; and establishing mechanisms for involving government at all levels in the

implementation process.

Assessment of project risks and opportunities.

Evaluating and processing procurement requests, especially those emanating from the

PSUs.

Preparing necessary reporting documents, such as M&E reports and progress reports,

for submission to funders and the PSC.

Knowledge transfer and dissemination of project outcomes.

Task Structure for Core Implementation Team

Based on Figure 2, a hierarchical organizational structure will be used for this project. The

benefits of using this structure for this project are as follows: (i) personnel recognize defined

levels of leadership; (ii) employees narrow their field of focus to their expected deliverables; and

(iii) managers and subordinates understand how their tasks support the realization of the

overriding objective of this PB project. To enhance seamless management of project-related

activities, an indicative task design has been developed for key personnel (see Table 3). It is

-35-

necessary to note that this job design is subject to modification in response to the emerging

needs and priorities of this project.

Table 3: Task Design/Structure for the Core Implementation Team

s/n Staff Designation Responsibilities Reporting line

1 Project Coordinator i. The project coordinator is responsible for the overall success of this project. ii. He/She owns the project’s development objective. iii. Spearheads strategic meetings involving the PSC and the head of the funding agency.

Overall head of this project. Oxfam Novib Associate Country Director will act in this capacity with support from the GG Officer

2 NLC National Coordinator i. The NLC coordinator is responsible for securing much needed buy-in from the NLC, especially at the national level. ii. Supervises the activities of the NLC state officers. iii. Participates in identifying suitable NLC representatives for training. iv. Also contributes to the design of PB advocacy campaigns. v. Participates in establishing meaningful lines of communication between the NLC and the government, particularly the legislature.

The NLC National Coordinator reports to the Project Director.

3 Project Director i. The Project Director is the overall operational head for this project, i.e. coordinates the activities of the PMU. ii. Establishes operational policies and guidelines for implementing project-related activities. iii. Reviews and approves annual work plans and procurement plans for this project. iv. Ensures that reports are submitted to funders and other critical stakeholders in a timely manner. v. Works with the PMU team to ensure value-for-money for project resource commitments

The Project Director reports directly to the Project Coordinator.

4 Project Managers i. Responsible for managing the activities of their respective PSUs. ii. Ensures that activities identified in their respective annual plans are being implemented in a timely manner. iii. Works with NLC state officers to secure the buy-in of state governments and other pressure groups.

The Project Manager reports directly to the Project Director.

5 M&E Manager i. Coordinates all M&E-related activities for this project, both at the national and state levels, i.e. drafting and implementing M&E plans. ii. Coordinates field-based project supervision missions in the 3 pilot states. iii. Ensures that M&E reports and project progress reports are prepared and submitted to the funder and stakeholders in a timely manner. iv. Coordinates data collection from the states and analyses this to monitor project progress. v. Organizing capacity building for state M&E officers and community mobilization officers.

Reports directly to the Project Director.

6 Finance Manager i. Responsible for aggregate financial management for this project. ii. Establishing fiduciary controls for this project. iii. Coordinating the financial audit of PSUs’ expenditure, i.e. ensuring timely retirement of expenditures. iv. Preparing monthly, quarterly, and annual

Reports directly to the Project Director.

-36-

financial reports for the project; securing approval from project director before dissemination to funders and other critical stakeholders.

7 Procurement Manager i. Establishing guidelines for preparing annual procurement plans. ii. Reviewing the annual procurement plans of PSUs and securing approval for same from the project director. iii. Processing procurement requests for PSUs, i.e. procurement of equipment and consultants.

Reports directly to the Project Director.

8 Communications Manager i. Developing the communications strategy/plan for this project. ii. Coordinating the implementation of the communication activities-as outlined in the communications plan- at the state level. iii. Working with consultants to design advocacy campaigns for this project. iv. Working with communication officers to coordinate the activities of community mobilization officers. v. Coordinating the conduct of lessons-learnt studies. vi. Coordinating knowledge management for this project.

Reports directly to the Project Director.

2.4.5 Project Plan

A detailed project plan -outlining key activities, timelines, and M&E procedures- will be produced

and will form the blueprint for the project, i.e. Project Implementation Manual (PIM). This

document will guide project implementation processes at the state level. The PIM will contain

procedures for the following activities: M&E; financial management (i.e. fiduciary controls and

responsibilities); procurement; and communications. An overview of these activities is provided

subsequently.

State Office’s Administrative and Financial Management:

Monitoring of the financial aspects is best considered as the monitoring of a continuous

process, from consultation and engagement to follow-up of the implementation until the closure

of the engagements. Such monitoring is comparable to a general quality control of the whole

implementation process and is focused on ensuring that activities support the realization of

identified outputs and outcomes. This will be done on a monthly basis and monitoring will lead

to pro-active management. Consequently, the project will hire a full time M&E Officer who will

ensure that all tasks for all actors are executed at deadlines. S/he will be supported by State

M&E Officer will be hired for the project

Monitoring will be carried out at two levels. First at the state level (i.e. PSU), a day-to-day

internal monitoring will ensure effective and timely decision-making and accountability for

resources and achievements of results. At the operational level, monitoring will facilitate

management and control. It will include analysis of, for example, activity volumes, timetables,

-37-

deadlines, costs, progress, problems, and bottlenecks. Secondly, monitoring will be carried out

by Oxfam in order to facilitate the overall strategic management decisions on an informed way

at key steps of the project cycle, contract management, and providing informed and useful

reporting on the project portfolio. If necessary, the project team must act proactively and foresee

some active interventions, advice and/or other specific forms of support. This approach is

focussed on results, where the emphasis will be on the quality or accuracy of the task executed.

Quality Control:

The internal control is expected (a) to ensure the efficient administrative functioning for the

programme its technical components and (b) to obtain a performing and efficient implementation

of the programme activities. The control system will be reactive and include aspects covering

the implementation of the Internal Control Standards, legality and regularity of the operations,

findings of internal/external audit reports and their follow-up, and enhancements once lessons

learned.

Main control activities will focus on (a) the fine tuning of the technical management tools to

support a streamlined execution of the programme and (b) the programme-management service

covering all non-technical tasks of other components related to: (1) the administrative

management, supervision of implementation procedures; communication and visibility; etc and

(2) the financial management.

Procurement:

Procurement under this project will be governed by a procurement policy that involves inputs

from the procurement systems of the funder and Oxfam Novib. This procurement policy will be

developed at the inception stage of this project and will outline rules and procedures for the

following: (i) the procurement of goods and works; and (ii) the use of consultants. The policy will

also guide the PMU in processing requests emanating from the PSUs. Procurement for this

project will be conducted according the following principles:

i. To ensure value-for-money, all procurement requests emanating from the PSUs will

be processed by the PMU. This centralized approach reduces operational risks for

this project and guarantees effective supplier management.

ii. Local service contracts will be imprest commitments. Competition and transparency

will be assured at all stages of the contract process.

iii. Ensuring that solicitations are designed with clearly drafted requirements, properly-

aligned pricing and scoring structures, and well-tailored legal agreements.

iv. In anticipation of the use of consultants for this project, the quality and cost-based

selection method (QCBS) will be used to select and engage consultants to carry out

some of the technical activities for this project (see Annex A).

-38-

v. Complete tender dossiers will be prepared, including all documents for evaluation

and contracting before launching of the tenders. The PMU will review and formally

approve documents before launching. The review process will entail ensuring that

proper material disclosure protocols are built into document drafting and tendering

processes to mitigate against project delays and supplier extra-cost claims.

vi. Establishing performance management systems for tracking the performance of

suppliers and contractors. These systems will be used for the procurement of

equipment and consultants throughout the duration of this project.

Financial Management and Financial Audits:

At the inception stage of this project, a financial management policy for this will be developed to

ensure that all financial transactions associated with this project are accounted for and recorded

using appropriate accounting systems. Oxfam will assume responsibility for proper and secure

maintenance of all accounting documents and records for the funder. The financial policy will

outline the fiduciary controls established for this project. Together with fiduciary controls,

formats and checklists for the verification of the expenditures of PSUs will be created at the

inception stage of this project. The financial policy for this project –also to be prepared at the

inception stage- will guide the processing of all financial transactions for this project.

Moreover, a more general format and checklist for an internal auditing will be used during field-

based supervision missions by the Finance Manager to PSUs. The Finance Manager –

domiciled to the PMU- will conduct these internal audits (see Table 2). Such internal audits will

check basic financial data (bank balance, amount in cash etc.) and the presence of up-to-date

documents (inputs made in the accountancy, perpetual inventory updated, expense retirements,

list of contracts and advances updated etc.). The Finance Manager will prepare monthly,

quarterly, and annual financial statements for this project and submit same to the funder. The

annual financial statements for this project will be subject to further audit and certification by a

qualified external auditor. To enhance accountability and transparency, the PSC will provide

much needed oversight of the utilization of financial resources for this project. Overall, the

accounting standards for this project will be guided by the following principles:

Full accountability of all financial inputs committed to this project;

A true and fair view of the financial position and financial performance presented by the

financial statements;

Preparation of financial statements that contain full disclosure of all material information

and will be accompanied by supplementary notes to explain or qualify various accounts;

Full disclosure of the accounting principles and financial policies adopted by Oxfam

Novib as well as disclosure of any subsequent changes in either existing accounting

-39-

practices or financial policies should be included in the notes to the financial statement;

and

Annual financial statements will be audited and certified by an independent and qualified

auditor as a fair presentation of this project’s financial position.

Project Monitoring & Evaluation:

Participatory M&E will be used to systematically collect and periodically analyse information that

has been chosen and documented by the M&E personnel with inputs from the NLC and relevant

CSOs. This approach will provide information during the life of the project, so that adjustments

and modifications can be made if necessary. Data for this project will be collected on a monthly,

quarterly and annual basis.

For this project, monitoring will be used to track and compare actual project performance

against set targets to detect any departure from the planned course of action. It will also be

used to indicate whether the inputs are being delivered in the right quantities and at the right

time, whether the activities are being implemented as planned, on schedule and within the

budget limits; and the output targets are being achieved. Furthermore, monitoring will be used

to indicate factors causing implementation delays or unexpected results. Feedbacks from the

findings will be channelled to the CIT to take necessary action. The review and analysis of the

feedback will form the evaluation component of the M&E system which also includes, when

needed, management interventions in the implementation activities or modification of the

original implementation plan.

M&E System: The M&E team will work to develop a comprehensive M&E plan for this project.

They will also be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the System at the national

and state Levels. Annex A outlines the indicative log-frame instrument for this project. The

contents of this instrument will be responsive to emerging priorities for this project. The

proposed plan will include the basic components of a good M&E System:

Clear statements of measurable objectives for the programme.

A structured set of indicators which must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Realistic and Timely).

Structured formats and rules for reporting on the above.

(the tracking of the evolution of these objectives and indicators through this reporting process

being the expected output of the system).

-40-

The plan will also include:

Data collection plan and analysis strategy including all tools (formats for data collection,

data storage and consolidation tables) and procedures (frequency, communication

channels etc.)

Institutional arrangements for storing, analysing, reporting the data collected and

management of records;

Investment in capacity building to sustain the M&E System;

Plan for how the M&E findings will be fed back into decision making.

(These elements being the input of the system).

Roles and Responsibilities: Coordination of data flow, verification of data, quality control;

management of records.

Financial monitoring.

Reporting tools and formats.

Detailed plan for dissemination and strategic use of data.

Implementation of the M&E Plan: The Programme will be monitored through a set of

performance indicators and coordinated by the M&E manager in coordination with M&E officers

of the three PSUs. The indicators (see Annex A) defined will track changes in performance at

different stages in the life of the Programme in comparison with baseline data collected on each

indicator at the onset of the Programme.

Routine M&E data will be collected using tools to be designed. Data storage and analysis will be

done by the M&E manager. The M&E manager –domiciled to the PMU- will prepare all the tools,

procedures, templates, forms and guidelines, and incorporate them into a reference manual for

dissemination to relevant stakeholders.

Reporting:

Reporting obligations will be respected as agreed with the donor. To this end, the following

reports will be prepared throughout the project cycle: inception report; monthly and quarterly

progress reports (i.e. Mid-Term Performance Reviews); and a project completion report.

An Inception Report will be prepared by the Good governance team at Oxfam within 6 weeks

of commencing the assignment. The Inception Report will include the following:

- Reviewed Logical Framework with a logical explanation of changes in prevailing

circumstances / current events / changed priorities,

- A detailed description of the Objectively Verifiable Indicators for the objectives and

project results,

-41-

- The Overall Work Programme (detailed implementation schedule of activities) for the

entire project period.

Quarterly Progress Reports will be prepared every quarter and presented to the donor/funder.

Progress Reports will contain a description of progress achieved for activities during the last

quarter/year, inputs used and produced outputs; and a schedule of activities to be implemented

in the next quarter/year, together with related inputs and expected outcomes.

A Project Completion Report will be prepared at the end of the assignment. The report will set

out achievements against expected outputs and will highlight where these have not been

achieved and why. The report will also highlight operating modalities for sustaining successful

activities and outcomes following the project completion.

-42-

3. Oxfam Novib: Track Record in Managing Governance Projects

This project will be implemented under Oxfam in Nigeria’s Good Governance (GG)

programme, whose main goal is to promote effective and efficient Public Finance

Management in Nigeria by working with citizens, institutions and the private sector to uphold

transparency and accountability and safeguard the socio-economic and political rights of

Nigerians. It also works to ensure that the nation’s huge earnings from the extractives sector

as well as taxes generated from corporates and citizens are used efficiently to improve the

living standards of the vast majority of ordinary Nigerians.

Under the Good Governance programme portfolio, Oxfam has implemented a number of

projects that have had significant impact on improving transparency and accountability in

management of public resources in Nigeria. Some of these programmes are discussed

subsequently.

The Capacity for Research Advocacy for Fair Taxation (CRAFT) Project

The CRAFT project is ensuring a more equitable and increased taxation as a critical

ingredient for both poverty reduction and democratic governance. The project is empowering

civil society and citizens to effectively influence the formulation and implementation of tax

policies; and through evidence based research, civic education, citizens’ mobilization and

advocacy, contribute to the development of tax policies, practices and administration that

promote the rights of people and protect disadvantaged populations from harmful and unfair

taxation. It also seeks to ensure that the use of tax revenue addresses the concerns of the

poor and majority citizens in the country by advancing arguments for pro-poor spending and

investment in social services and effective service delivery. Nigeria depends largely on

extractive industries revenue which is unreliable for financing development. The absence of

a tax compliant culture not only erodes the tax base and revenue but also discourages active

citizenship demands for accountability and good governance. CRAFT is also ensuring that

citizens understand their tax rights and resist unfair taxation through the support for citizens’

action, peaceful rallies and protests against unfair tax practices.

Through CRAFT, Oxfam has built the capacity of about 68 civil society activists and 17

members of Trade Associations to undertake research and advocacy on tax issues. A

National Platform on Tax Justice and Governance Platform was established; the platform

undertakes continuous research, advocacy and public awareness on just tax systems

through engagement with the government and civil society. The platform is currently made

up of about 85 member organizations with different background and expertise. The platform

-43-

has Oxfam in Nigeria, Actionaid Nigeria, ChristainAid, CISLAC and CDD as its Steering

Committee members that are responsible for providing direction for the platform. At the state

level, CRAFT also established 17 platforms on Tax Justice and Governance in the 17

southern states of Nigeria. This PB project will seek to effectively leverage the gains of the

CRAFT project to increase and sustain any positive governance gains achieved so far.

The Inequality Campaign

The inequality campaign has the overriding goal of initiating national discourse on issues of

inequality in Nigeria among all Nigerian stakeholders to positively influence the existing

socio-cultural, economic and political factors and conditions driving poverty and inequality.

This is anchored on the assumptions that there are serious challenges relating to inequality

as exemplified in the official poverty statistics of Nigeria, reports and other contextual

information. The campaign has produced and disseminated an ‘Even It Up’ Campaign

Strategy Paper to guide engagement in Nigeria; trained twenty journalists on issues of

inequality in Nigeria to help create awareness and reporting in the media. A national policy

dialogue was held to further create awareness on the issues of inequality in Nigeria.

The project has also enabled a community of at least 121, 884 active citizens to access

campaign materials on social media and built 21,000 active citizens through enhanced

access to information on inequality. Over 5,000 flyers and stickers in English have been

distributed with strong messaging on the role of inequality within the Nigerian society. A

compendium of Policy Paper Series on different aspect of inequality was produced and

excerpts of this publication are regularly published in the national dailies in Nigeria. To

ensure that the message of the campaign spreads, Oxfam partnered with relevant CSOs to

support advocacy efforts on the role of PFM transparency and accountability in reducing

inequality. In addition, Web platforms & interactive applications were developed that

combine storytelling with interactive media products to raise awareness on inequality in

Nigeria.

Strengthening Public Finance in Nigeria- Results since 2013/14 (STREPF) Project

The STREPF project is aimed at promoting public accountability and transparency in public

financial management in Nigeria through a tripartite stakeholder engagement involving the

Government, CSOs, and the organized private sector. Its objectives include:

i. Established functional tripartite stakeholders’ forum of government, CSO and private

sector that will shape public finance process in Nigeria

ii. Increased transparency and participation of citizens in the public finance process in

Nigeria through the production of an annual Budget Performance Assessment Report

-44-

from the consolidation of four quarterly budget monitoring reports from the Federal

and 1 Niger Delta State and strategically disseminated to relevant stakeholders in

Government, Private and the Citizens sectors.

iii. A clear medium term road map and action plan developed for greater impact of

applied budget work at the Federal and state level.

Major achievements of the project include the facilitation of the formation of a tripartite group

made up of government, private sector and civil society to focus on public finance

management. This committee has met on six occasions and helped fashion out activities for

the group as well as the development of a public finance roadmap for Nigeria. The project

sponsored Radio programmes (13 weeks) on public finance issues on ‘Ray Power’ national

network service. This helped increase the citizens’ interest in the PFM process thus, creating

avenues for improved public accountability. The campaign component of this project also

entailed organising social media engagements including tweet conferences. One of the

tweet conferences had a reach of 74,075 and impact of 237,107 thus, increasing citizens’

engagement with the public finance process.

The project team also commissioned analysis and comparison of public expenditure in the

budgets of three Niger Delta States and the Federal government. The published work is

being used for budget-related advocacy in the states and nationally. The following capacity

building workshops were conducted under this project: trained 20 CSOs and 6 CSO staff in

Year 1; 6 state government budget directors and 6 state government directors of finance (in

Year 2) on participatory budgeting. This has created champions within the public sector who

are actively involved in strengthening public finance management by making them

participatory in nature. Town hall meetings were also organized in three states as a follow-up

to trainings on participatory budgeting. This led to the establishment of budget monitoring

teams who are focused on ensuring that budgets are effectively implemented. Organised

discussions and training for civil society organisation on the zero-based budgeting (ZBB)

which the federal government is adopting for the next fiscal year. Thus, the CSOs are better

placed to engage the new budgeting system. Developing a public finance roadmap

expected to be owned and promoted by the state government agencies. This is aimed at

ensuring that all leakages in state resource mobilisation are plugged, wider opportunities for

funding explored and allocations and implementation of funds are carried out effectively.

Deepening Expenditure Line Tracking for States and Local Governments

(DELT4SLOG) in the Niger Delta since 2012

This project focuses on monitoring and tracking budget implementation at state and local

government levels to enhance transparency and accountability in public finance

-45-

management. States covered include Rivers, Bayelsa and Delta States. Results achieved so

far include: twenty NGOs representatives, 35 Community Executives and Stakeholders, and

46 community women trained on budget tracking and monitoring, Fiscal Inclusion and

Democratic Accountability for Media, Effective Civil Society Engagement, Communities and

staff of State Houses of Assembly. An estimated 5,616 capital projects were reviewed and

1,013 capital projects tracked across the health, education and public works sectors in four

states (with an additional, being Akwa Ibom State, expanded at the request and cost to

NDEBUMOG). Budget Factsheets were developed as an advocacy tool for ‘Inclusive

Budgeting Town Hall Meetings’ held in 16 Locations across the following states: Akwa Ibom,

Bayelsa, Delta and Rivers State. The Town Hall Meetings took place at Oron, Eket, Ikot

Ekpene, Uyo, Warri, Abraka, Agbor, Asaba, Kaiama, Elebele, Amassoma, Yenagoa, Omoku,

Bori, Isiokpo and Port Harcourt. A total of 663 participants attended these grassroots town

hall meetings consisting of 413 males and 250 females.

Remediation Campaign with NEITI Audit reports

Using the NEITI Audit reports as its basis, this project promotes transparency and

accountability in the extractive sector in Nigeria through institutionalized and sustainable

reforms. Its objectives include: to enhance the capacity of the legislature to strengthen NEITI

Implementation in Nigeria; harness and project citizens’ input into the Petroleum Industry Bill

(PIB); advocate for the passage of an inclusive, people-friendly PIB; promote the

incorporation of EITI Standards into ongoing reforms in the extractive sector; monitor sector

reform performance and its impact on the welfare of citizens; and mobilize popular demand

for transparency and accountability in the extractive sector.

Working through a partner –CISLAC- and direct engagement with relevant stakeholders, the

following have been achieved so far:

A total of 1,296 direct beneficiaries/participants were reached through the activities

carried out in 2015, out of which 332 are female while 964 are male. The total indirect

beneficiaries reached were 5.5m through the Open Audit Radio programme (2.5M)

and Media advocacy (3M).

With Oxfam and CISLAC support, a Public Perception Survey was carried out by the

NEITI Secretariat through a consultant with the main objective of establishing

baseline empirical information and data for appraising the public perception of NEITI.

The report has been shared and disseminated nationally.

A Radio Programme called “Open Audit” was established as a platform to support the

remediation campaign; so far, 13 Editions have been aired.

-46-

30 Journalists (20 Male) and (10 Female) were trained on the EITI process for

effective coverage and reporting of activities in the extractive sectors in Nigeria.

A national campaign strategy was developed in consultation with stakeholders to

drive the remediation campaign in the country.

The Fiscal Allocation and the Statutory Disbursement Audit 2007-2011 (FASDA) was

simplified. The report of this exercise will be published and disseminated in the

coming weeks.

Bi-Monthly Newsletters on extractives were produced and disseminated to key

stakeholders.

A shadow report on the NEITI process in Nigeria has been compiled and is currently

being reviewed before publication and dissemination.

Policy dialogues on ‘contract transparency’ and ‘beneficial ownership’ were held and

reports produced.

The acceptability of the project in Nigeria has largely contributed to some policy and practice

changes in the extractives sector:

The Nigeria NEITI Secretariat was awarded the best implementing nation in Sydney-

Australia in April 2013 due to the timely release of Audit Reports adjudged credible.

NEITI secretariat has attained a great measure of stability owing to the support from

our partner, CISLAC. As such, the secretariat is now more committed not just to

justify the validation and compliance status achieved in 2011 but efforts are being

made to ensure that transparency and accountability prevails in the extractive sector.

Such efforts are manifest of the series of audits carried out by the secretariat

covering the period 2007 to 2014.

Increased awareness and community sensitization resulting in the increase in the

number of groups able to engage and demand accountability at the state level.

Increased demand for accountability at the sub-national level especially with respect

to the 13% derivation resulting in increased demands on Oil Producing Areas

Development Commissions, NDDC and Ministry for the Niger Delta. This has

included efforts by CSO partners in Bayelsa State engaging the government for the

enactment.

Better understanding of NEITI and the extractive sector process by the relevant

Legislative Committees in the 7th Assembly 2011 to 2015.

Improved Budgetary Provisions in 2013 for the NEITI Secretariat to fulfil its mandate

of promoting transparency and accountability in the sector.

-47-

Increased legislative oversight translating into multiple investigative hearings into the

operations and activities of individuals, operators and institutions in the sector with far

reaching recommendations in 2014.

Improved dissemination of audit reports by NEITI Secretariat resulting in the

discontinuation of the traditional road shows which were expensive but ineffective.

The publication of simplified version of reports and its translations into 3 major local

languages for citizens’ enlightenment in 2013.

Improved NEITI-NASS collaboration in sanitizing the sector, such as NASS

committee engagement of NEITI for data and information to aid its investigations and

recommendations. This represents a significant change from the previous case of

distrust and mutual suspicion as at 2011 when the 7th Assembly was inaugurated.

The Inclusion of Solid Minerals by the NEITI with the conduct of the First Audit

Report 2007 to 2011 in 2012 and second for 2012 in 2013 making information about

the revenue loss from the sector available to citizens and the government.

Improved administration of the sector, such as the introduction of buying centres to

capture elusive revenues and the development of new fiscal regimes for taxes and

royalties to replace outdated and low rates.

Better organized engagement of artisanal and small scale miners, and maximization

of government receipts and revenues from construction companies covered by the

audit reports.

Conduct of Fiscal Allocation and Statutory Disbursement Audit 2007-2011 to

increase transparency and accountability in the use of extractive revenues by states

and government agencies. This result has facilitated increased mobilization of CSOs

in the states by linking extractive revenues with the budget, development, and

citizens’ welfare.

The publication of a book on Shadow Reporting: Confronting the Resource Curse

2012, Beyond Validation 2013. This book provides an alternative voice to NEITI

reports on its performance. It is also used as a peer-review mechanism and this has

resulted in increased institutional effectiveness in information dissemination,

preparation and publication of Annual Workplans.

Improved institutional transparency and accountability in NEITI with regard to its

internal systems, i.e. promoting transparent and open procurement processes

particularly in the appointment of Auditors and competent staff.

Another book publication on The Effect of Lead Poisoning on Communities in

Zamfara State was used as an intervention mechanism by CSOs to force the

Federal Government to commit to the clean-up of communities affected by the lead

-48-

poisoning incident. This publication also serves as a useful reference tool for

understanding the health, environmental and social effects of lead poisoning

stemming from primitive and illegal mining activities.

Oxfam will ride on these successes and the experience and network of its well experienced

GG team to deliver this project. This project will also benefit from Oxfam’s 19 Affiliates which

make up Oxfam International, whose support and wealth of experience can be drawn upon

where necessary.

3.1 Practical insights

Oxfam’s work in Nigeria for over 5 decades gives us strong practical insights into how to

successfully implement this level of PFM reform successfully in the country. This includes:

Fostering genuine local ownership: We know how to provide frameworks in Nigeria

for teams to work together to identify problems and create solutions.

Focusing on results: Our experience in Nigeria suggests that to maximise the impact

of an initiative such as this, there must be absolute clarity on which tangible benefits

are expected, how they will be measured, and who will be accountable for ensuring

that they are achieved (see Annex A).

Understanding what is politically possible: Our team has highly tuned political

‘antennae’ - to understand what is achievable in a fluid environment and how to

navigate the best path. Our strategic review panel provides further depth of political

understanding.

Using a Nigerian-owned approach: We have a track record of working successfully

with Nigerian public servants in teams – as, for example, with the drafting of the

NSPSR.

Being realistic about timing: In Nigeria, reform activity slows considerably during the

run-up to and after national elections. In our plans, we have anticipated some political

delays around approval of new central mandates and HR policies, and around the

involvement of NASS. We will focus on less political issues, such as budget process

and service delivery reform during inception phase of this project.

Maintaining flexibility: Our experience in Nigeria has taught us to respond rapidly to

requests for support, especially in a changing political environment. When the

reform-minded individuals within the civil service are correctly identified and

supported, then change can happen.

Managing risks effectively: We have a sophisticated approach to anticipating and

mitigating risks to make sure that impact is maximised.

-49-

3.2 The Nigeria Labour Congress’ Experience to Partner on this Project

The Nigeria Labour Congress is Nigeria’s Central Labour Organisation established in 1978.

It has a membership of over 4 million and spans the public and private sectors of the

economy. It has 43 affiliate unions and 37 State Councils. The affiliates also have

corresponding structure in the states, while some has zonal structures. However, the

membership excludes some civil establishments that offer services classified by law as

essential, such as the Central Bank of Nigeria, Police Armed Forces, etc.

The Nigeria Labour Congress aims to be the most dependable source of information and

enlightenment of the working class in Nigeria. Its objective is to be the most reliable and

faithful advocate of working class values, justice and equity. The mission of the Nigeria

Labour Congress is to organise, unionise and educate all categories of Nigerian workers;

defend and advance the political, economic, social and cultural rights of Nigerian workers;

emancipate and unite Nigerian workers and people from all forms of exploitation and

discrimination; achieve gender justice in the work place and in NLC; strengthen and deepen

the ties and connections between Nigerian workers and the mutual/natural allies in and

outside Nigeria and; lead the struggle for the transformation of Nigeria into a just, humane

and democratic society.

The fundamental aims and objective of Congress are to protect, defend and promote the

rights, well-being and the interests of all workers, pensioners and the trade unions; to

promote and defend a Nigerian nation that would be just, democratic, transparent and

prosperous and to advance the cause of the working class generally through the attainment

of these two basic objectives:

To continually promote, defend and advance the economic, political and social well-

being of Nigerian workers;

To promote and defend the rights, well-being and interests of workers in the work-

place and society.

The Congress operates through its leadership who direct the affiliates and state councils

based on a renewed commitment to the values of solidarity, commitment to ethics, social

relevance, and consistency. More recently, the NLC’s leadership has been working on

rebuilding the movement in a direction that makes it more relevant to union members and

other segments of civil society; it is also about enhancing inter-labour movement linkages

that can help boost the power of the labour movement as a whole. In particular, it aims at

firming up the capacity of each union and segment through solidarity actions involving the

resources, experience, and general organisational acumen of the entire movement. This has

-50-

been demonstrated in the struggle against casualization of labour, engagement on Structural

Adjustment Programmes (SAP), election process (ACE, TMG), deregulation of the oil sector,

budgeting, minimum wage, corruption and recently climate change among others.

To give this struggle a credible and sustainable organisational platform, the Congress has

also facilitated the creation of a pro-democracy coalition of civil society organisations. The

nucleus of the network is the trade union movement. Its immediate agenda is to widen the

margin of popular participation in governance, mobilize against anti-democratic elements

any form of subversion of civil rule and end the ramified regression of the country.

A second move has been to create a framework of national discourse around the necessity

and modalities for a progressive intervention in the political process. This has led to a

strengthened resolve by the movement and the broad civil society to explore the possibility

of forming a political party that can:

Unite the common people around a socially redemptive agenda;

Unite the working people in the light of elite-driven identity politics, which has

elevated regional, ethnic and religious considerations as the basis of political

discourse and action;

Challenge the political monopoly of conservative, feudal and neo-colonial forces

which continue to deploy looted funds, ethnic and religious caucuses, and state

power to perpetuate their hegemony; and

Institutionalize political discourse and action by promoting issues that are concretely

tied to the fundamental problems of the country, especially its primary producer

status, the collapse of the social sectors, the increasing primitivity of elite

accumulation, and the dysfunctional manner in which the political elite manage the

country’s ethnic and religious diversity.

As part of efforts to boost the movement's capacity and extending union coverage to a wider

segment of society, the Congress is looking seriously into the informal sector. For the NLC,

organising this sector is conceived in terms of a movement-building mission, which seeks to

make the informal sector a popular movement with values based on which it can forge a

mutually empowering organic relationship with other trade unions.

The NLC naturally prides itself as one of the most representative federations in the world. It

organizes blue and white collar workers, the professionals, and pensioners, workers in

informal and informal employment and the public and private sectors. Therefore, as an

authentic working peoples' organization, it must necessarily be capable of addressing the full

-51-

diversity of the interests, rights and concern of the entirety of the working people. Presently,

the NLC is also unarguably the most influential non-State actor in Nigeria. It must continue to

sustain the capacity to articulate and defend national interests in relation to the onslaught of

reactionary forces and their international patrons.

As expressed in some of the extant Policies and Resolutions of the 11th National Delegates

Conference of the Nigeria Labour Congress with much emphasis on engagement on issues

of good governance, the NLC is happy and keen on collaborating and partnering with Oxfam

in engaging in PFM discourse, particularly those focusing on institutionalizing participative

budgeting in Nigeria.

-52-

Annex A: PROJECT LOG-FRAME MATRIX

Logic of Intervention Indicators Sources of Verification Assumptions

Overall Objective: Institutionalizing Participatory Budgeting in Nigeria.

Percentage of citizens who understand the budget process in Nigeria.

Level of access to information about government expenditure, i.e. level of external scrutiny of the budget.

Number of completed projects.

Percentage implementation of the budget, i.e. 2016-2020.

Survey results; monthly and quarterly publications about government spending and projects; number of pro-poor policies instituted by the government;

Commitment level of the current administration towards anti-corruption, i.e. political will.

Current fiscal challenges present challenges to revenue and threaten public services.

Capacity to build of a coalition of civil society and pressure groups around PFM issues in Nigeria.

Level of openness of the executive arm of the government.

Purpose: 1. To strengthen the capacity of the NLC and its allies in participatory budgeting. 2. To stimulate national discourse on targeted public service delivery with a view to lifting many Nigerians out of poverty. 3. To improve access to public service delivery for the poor, i.e. To ensure efficient and pro poor budget implementation. 4. To create mechanisms for strengthening engagement between government and citizens on budget-related issues, i.e. putting citizens in the driving seat of the budget formulation and implementation process. 5. To establish effective mechanisms for tracking government spending at the national and state levels.

Percentage Level of citizens’ awareness of government spending processes.

Number/availability of progress reports for government projects, i.e. public works.

Percentage level of interest of civil society in government spending.

Quality of public service delivery.

Frequency of legislative scrutiny of external audit reports.

Monthly reports by government agencies; project progress reports; content of NLC press conferences; newspaper reports; feedback from field-based surveys and KIIs; feedback from radio programs; quarterly and annual external audit reports; quarterly and annual financial reports published by government agencies;

Level of literacy among the citizenry.

Strategic underpinning of the donor’s governance portfolio.

Level of openness of government MDAs in disclosing information that is in the public interest.

Results: 1.1 Transparent budgeting and expenditure processes, at the federal and 3 focal states that reflect budget priorities identified through PB, and serve as a binding guide to their implementation, using the prudently estimated resources available. 1.2 Improved awareness among the citizens

Number of pro-poor spending initiatives introduced by government agencies in each focal state.

Minimum of 10 budget tracking reports (i.e. simplified technical analysis of budget proposals and project implementation reports) produced by the project team in

PFM initiatives launched by the national and state governments; budget tracking reports; feedback from radio programs sponsored by the project; proceedings of quarterly townhall meetings;

Level of government buy-in the focal states.

Level of implementation of the 2016 Appropriation Act and subsequent annual budgets.

Availability of budget information tends to be constrained by entrenched interests and rent-seeking

-53-

about budget issues in Nigeria. 1.3 NLC and CSOs’ capacity in budget analysis and monitoring strengthened. 1.4 Improved accountability on the part of government for use and allocation of resources. 1.5 Established mechanisms for tracking government expenditure at the national and state levels.

partnership with the NLC and CSOs.

% Level of success in using the triggering the FOI Act to obtain budget information at the national level and in the 3 focal states.

Number of trainings delivered to the NLC officials and CSOs over the duration of this project.

Number of townhall meetings and open discussion forums organized over the duration of this project.

among some government officials.

Activities: 1.1.1 Conduct systematic review of PFM processes and expenditure management in the 3 focal states. 1.1.2 Conduct critical analysis of the following budgets at the national level and in the 3 target states: 2013 to 2016. 1.1.2 Conduct political economy analysis of budgeting in Nigeria. 1.1.3 Conduct situational analysis of the Brazilian PB Model. 1.1.4 Use findings from the political economy analysis and situational analysis to improve the design of this project. 1.1.5 Conduct readability assessment to evaluate ease of access to budget-related information in government MDAs at the national and state level. 1.1.6 Use findings from systematic review and readability assessment to recommend a citizen-led expenditure management system in governance institutions. 1.2.1 Organize open discussion programs on radio & produce thought leadership papers to create awareness about PFM and budget issues in Nigeria.

Number of assessment reports on PFM infrastructure/processes in 3 focal states.

Gap analysis/assessment report of ease of access to budget-related information at the national level and in the focal states.

Baseline survey completed.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of the FOI Act completed.

Number of stakeholders for the project identified and engaged.

Design of training program using consultants.

Engage consultants to design format for radio programs and identify suitable radio stations to air the program in the focal states.

Organize PSC.

Finalized reports; results of research reports and baseline surveys; training materials; training program documents; number of meetings between NLC & relevant stakeholders; and number of times PB radio program is aired.

Availability of budget funds determines the degree to which activities would be implemented.

Project success hinges on effective coordination with and the national headquarters of the NLC.

Degree of commitment of the governments of the target states towards transparent and accountable PFM.

-54-

1.2.2 Create quarterly reports on public works projects and make this available to the public, i.e. create an online platform to disseminate this information. 1.3.1 Map the governance landscape to identify relevant stakeholders for this project, i.e. CSOs. 1.3.2 Conduct baseline survey to assess the budget analysis and monitoring capacity of citizens, the NLC and other identified stakeholders. 1.3.3 Training (i.e. capacity building workshops) of NLC representatives on PFM and budget processes. 1.3.4 Training (i.e. capacity building workshops) of CSOs on budget monitoring and analysis. 1.4.1 Organize townhall meetings involving government officials, the NLC, and civil society. 1.4.2 Design and facilitate media campaigns that encourage the government to publicize information about its projects. 1.4.3 Sponsor radio programs that discuss inclusive growth through targeted government spending 1.5.1 Conduct survey and systematic review to evaluate the mainstreaming of the FOI Act. 1.5.2 Establish sustainable strategic partnerships between the NLC and CSOs in tracking and reporting on government spending at the national and state levels.

Inputs: Project commitment funds; Project Coordinator; NLC Project Coordinator; PMU; PSU; Training Programs; Consultants;

-55-

Annex B: STAKEHOLDER MATRIX

High POWER Low

i.) National Headquarters of the Nigeria Labour Congress ii.) Oxfam Novib iii.) Funder iv.) Citizens (i.e. project beneficiaries) in the three target states

i.) Community mobilization officers ii.) Consultants iii.) PB Network iv.) Civil Society Organizations & Think Tanks, v.) Pressure Groups vi.) Target government MDAs

i.) The governments of the three target states. ii.)State assemblies, i.e. budget/public accounts committee. iii.) National assembly, i.e. budget appropriation committee/public accounts committee. iv.) Project support units v.) NLC state chapters in the three target states.

i.) Project Steering Committee (PSC)

Low INTEREST High

-56-

Annex C: INDICATIVE BUDGET ITEMS

Budget Items Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total (NGN/US$)

Planning Meetings and Stakeholder Consultations

Communications: internet; telephone etc.

Research

Situation analysis

Capacity assessments

Mapping of Stakeholders

Project monitoring and evaluation

Communications: internet; telephone etc.

Community Mobilization:

Transport and logistics

Venue rentals

Communications: internet; telephone etc.

Personnel Costs:

Project Director

PMU-M&E Officer; Procurement Officer; Finance Officer; & Communications Officer

PSU 1-Project Manager; Procurement Officer; Finance Officer; & Communications Officer

PSU 2-Project Manager; Procurement Officer;

-57-

Finance Officer; & Communications Officer

PSU 2-Project Manager; Procurement Officer; Finance Officer; & Communications Officer

NLC State Officer 1

NLC State Officer 2

NLC State Officer 3

NLC National Project Coordinator

Consultant Fees

Security Officers

Ad-hoc community mobilization officers in the states

Ad-hoc personnel in PMU & PSU offices, i.e. office assistants, cleaners, interns etc.

Operational Costs:

Communications: internet; telephone etc.

Transportation: fuel; airfare; car hires

Field-based Monitoring & Evaluation

Administrative/Stationery costs: printing; postage etc.

Hardware maintenance/repairs i.e. computers, printers etc.

Office Rent, i.e. PMU & PSU offices

Electricity

Fuel for Vehicles

Diesel for Electric Generator

Accounting/Audit Fees

Advocacy Campaign/Capacity Building Costs:

Organizing events (i.e. townhall meetings, open discussion forums etc) i.e. venue rental, feeding; advocacy materials, banners, adverts etc

Recruitment of strategic communications consultants

Production of training materials

Production of reports/publications

-58-

Fees for ad-hoc staff, i.e. temporary community mobilization officers

Transportation/Logistics for field-based mobilization activities

Postage, i.e. invitation letters, documents, reports etc

Leased equipment for events

Cost of publishing articles or thought pieces in national dailies

Placement costs for radio programs, i.e. depends on frequency

Publishing thought pieces in national dailies

Communications: internet; telephone etc.

One Time Costs:

Project Vehicles

Electric generators

Printers

Desktop & Laptop Computers

Digital Cameras

Office Furniture

Total Project Commitment Cost:

Notes to the Budget:

The indicative budget for this PB project is US$10mn spread over five years, i.e. US$2mn per year. Based on the Budget, the following costs are critical to effective and seamless implementation of this project: personnel costs; one-time costs; operational costs; and advocacy/capacity building costs. This budget is subject to change in response to emerging priorities for this project. Any change to the overall budget for this project is subject to approval by the PSC and funder.