By Jide Ajani, Political Editor,

How your governors performed

It is all about a crude irony.  Indeed, had Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha, the presently embattled governor of Bayelsa State known that things would turn out like this, perhaps, he would have participated in the National Planning Commission, NPC, sponsored rating exercise which was carried out in conjunction with some donor agencies which included the World Bank, UNDP, DFID, USAID and CIDA.  Whereas other states of the federation willingly submitted themselves to assessors, Governor Alamieyeseigha refused to participate in the exercise.  It was not for lack of information.  The state administration, in its own column for scores simply had “Did Not Participate”.  Even Taraba State which came last in the exercise can still point to Bayelsa State as been behind it.

But it has brought daylight into the magic of some governors.  It has also since turned out to be an exercise which has shattered some myths woven around some state governments and their miraculous feats of performance. 
The performance rating of the 36 state governments and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja, ranked Enugu state as the best performing state in the federation in terms of policy formulation, budget and fiscal management, service delivery, communication and transparency in Nigeria since 1999.  Enugu State was followed by the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, with Osun, Ekiti, and Ebonyi States coming third, fourth and fifth respectively.

What this has clearly shown is that responsive governance and delivery of democracy dividends are not merely achieved on the pages of newspapers. It is achieved through hard work, commitment to the welfare of the people and a clear head.
In the first eleven category, Ondo, Lagos, Kaduna, Anambra, Cross River and Yobe states came sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, tenth and eleventh, respectively. The states willingly submitted to the assessment. Only Bayelsa State did not submit to this independent assessment. (See the table)

There were three rounds of assessment.

The NPC and the donor agencies did the assessment to  identify reforming State Governments in a transparent and fair manner, using internationally acceptable benchmarks to look into areas of developmental governance, reforms and project implementation under the SEEDS (State Economic Empowerment Development Strategies) programme.
The African Institute of Applied Economics, AIAE, played a major role in ensuring that those internationally acceptable benchmarks were adhered to.

A Background

Immediately after the 2003 elections, President Obasanjo  announced ambitious reforms aimed at laying the foundations for economic growth, employment generation, poverty reduction and more transparency and accountability in government. In July 2003, he appointed an economic team at the federal level which quickly developed a comprehensive programme: the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) which was launched in May 2004.
The NEEDS main elements include empowering people and improving social service delivery, growing private sector and focusing on no-oil growth, and changing the way government works and improving governance. The third pillar of NEEDS, improving governance is viewed as an imperative - the most important underlying factor for a successful attainment of goals of NEEDS and meeting the Millennium Development Goals of halving poverty by year 2015, and the State and Local Governments being closer to the populace, are viewed as being critical to successful implementation of national development strategies.

Consequently, the federal government, through the National Planning Commission (NPC) and Federal Ministry of Finance intensified dialogue with States of the federation on economic development and governance reform issues, encouraging each State to develop its own State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS).
The international community including development partners recognises that the country is at a turning point, one that requires significant, consistent response from the international community. The belief is that the country’s reform and development efforts need strong to international support to be sustainable.

The whole idea of NEEDS/SEEDS was developed through a strong home-grown process, underscoring the government’s firm commitment to an ambitious development agenda, aimed at changing behaviours and placing Nigeria on a path of sustainable long term growth and poverty reduction. This commitment was reflected in the number of State Governments which embraced SEEDS and the accompanying reform process aimed at improving governance at State level.
The States (and the local governments which fall under their purview), is the tier of government principally responsible for the delivery of basic social services to the population.  Therefore the attainment of the country’s poverty reduction and development objectives and more generally the MDGs, which the international community and development partners are committed to achieve, largely depends on state governments’ capacity to discharge their basic service delivery mandate in an efficient and accountable manner.

It is against this background that the development partners in Nigeria agreed to intensify support to States starting with provision of technical assistance to the States to develop and implement their SEEDS. 
There was also an agreement between the development partners, National Planning Commission and the Federal Ministry of Finance that additional resources should be directed to those States which embark on the most effective development programmes and support changes in governance, transparency and accountability.

Additional resources to well-performing States was viewed in terms of increase in allocation to pursue their development programmes and more donor aid and support.  It was agreed that the other States that perform less would continue to receive technical assistance particularly in capacity building that will directly contribute to improved performance.
With the aim to assess and identify reforming State Governments in a transparent and fair manner, development partners, working with the National Planning Commission, set out  to develop a set of performance benchmarks that can be used as an appropriate tool to assess performance of States in developmental governance, reforms and project implementation under the SEEDS programme.

Indicators Employed

Each of the four benchmarks was assessed by a range of detailed indicators. The assessment team assigned scores according to the performance of each State. The assessment was meant to be evidence-based implying that the State being assessed must present acceptable documentary (hard) evidence to convince the assessment team.

The set of benchmarks are widely accepted amongst donors and the NPC as an appropriate tool to measure performance of States. It is believed that the benchmarks will clearly identify States that demonstrate a clear commitment to improved governance, service delivery, transparency and accountability and the States will then be eligible both for special grants from the Federal Government as well as a package of donor assistance to support their state level programmes.
Before commencing with the assessment of the States, the assessment tool, termed SEEDS Benchmarks was presented to the National Economic Council early in year 2004 and later taken further by being shared with the 36 State Governors. This was carried out under the general oversight of the NPC. In order to ensure that the tool is appropriately customised to reflect local conditions in the country that all states are fairly assessed, the performance assessment tool were pre-tested in two States -Kwara and Enugu.  And following the trials, recommendations and lessons from the States were incorporated into the benchmarks and the methodology updated in readiness for nationwide application.

All the 36 States of the federation were expected to put themselves forward to be assessed. NPC got together with the development partners and through a fair and transparent process, recruited an independent firm; the African Institute for Applied Economics (AIAE) as the supervisory firm to conduct the assessment. This done, a team of assessors made up of experts in various fields were also recruited and provided with necessary training for the exercise through joint donor effort including DFID, UNDP and World Bank.

State Showing Interest

29 States in the first instance indicated interest to be assessed. They were grouped into two, made up of 15 States for the first round 5-18th June and 14 states for the second round 19th June to 2nd of July. The remaining states were prevailed upon to be benchmarked and of the lot, only Bayelsa State opted out leaving a total of 35 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) participating in the performance assessment exercise.

The exercise has been completed and was widely acclaimed to be thorough and transparent. Independent teams of experts, jointly commissioned by the NPC and development partners, visited each State that puts itself forward for assessment.  The independent quality control firm (the African Institute for Applied Economics) appointed through a competitive process managed the exercise and took responsibility for quality assurance. 

Assessing The States

The work of testing and assessing the States was carried out by a team of 3 consultants assigned to each State. The consultants were carefully selected with a condition that they must have a profile which include adequate experience in Public Expenditure Management and budget processes in Nigeria, policy and strategy analysis and government accounting and reporting. The donor community nominated at least an observer to attend the assessment visit to each State. 
Accordingly, each State was assigned a team of 3 assessors, 1 supervisor from the quality control firm and the observer from the international community. Each person had a role to play in the exercise as indicated earlier. The supervisor coordinated the entire exercise; the assessor conducted the assessment while the observer/s was there to observe and ensure compliance with the rules.  The teams of experts carried out an in-depth assessment of the progress at State level in designing and implementing key reforms and better service delivery, as embodied in, but not exclusively linked to, the State’s Economic Empowerment and Development strategy (SEEDS). 

All efforts were made by the development partners to eliminate bias and ensure a fair and consistent pattern of evaluation. For instance, members of the assessment teams were not be allowed to take part in the assessment of any state in their own geo-political zone, or any state where they have previously been employed.  Consultants who have participated in supporting the production of any state’s SEEDS document were not eligible to participate in the evaluation of that state.  In addition, assessment by the field team were submitted to the quality control firm for harmonisation and only scores which were backed up by hard evidence were allowed.

Implications Of The Outcome Of Benchmarking

Given the broad-based nature of the assessment, any States selected from the exercise could be said to be running a close to modern government in terms of development programmes, transparency and inclusiveness. The States will also be leading in prudent management of public funds for implementation of projects and programmes that are crucial to the development of the State and welfare of its people.

The implication of the exercise is that a couple of States will be selected based on their performance in the assessment as “SEEDS compliant States” or lead States. What this means is that these selected States from the next financial year will likely receive additional budgetary allocation from the federal government and in addition, donor partners in the country are intending to add their own windfall to the fortunes of those states. The donors have clearly indicated willingness to use the results of this exercise as a platform to identify states that can be given support and areas in which these states can be supported. An appropriate carrot to be provided by the donors and the FGN is indicated as essential to the exercise; however the size and scope of this carrot is yet to be finalised.

In any case, and more importantly, the assessment of performance of States marks a clear deviation from the past; there is an effort to encourage healthy competition amongst the States of the federation to champion development and improvement of the welfare of their citizens. For the first time, a merit-based system backed by a transparent performance assessment process is being introduced to herald State governments to begin to focus on development priorities of the States. Clearly, well-performing States will serve as role models for the others and the good practices from the States will be disseminated for the others to copy.

The present SEEDS document developed by nearly all the 36 States is a self-critical assessment of poverty and a strategy for the State’s development and growth, linked to improved financial management and service delivery in key areas such as health, education, water and basic services (proposing a social charter which recognises the right of Nigerians to government services that provide the basic needs for life). The donor community anticipates that with the development of such detailed sector strategies it will clearly show the roles and responsibilities of the three tiers of government and support from donors in service provision. This is expected to eliminate waste and duplication of effort and ensure that increasingly, public spending is providing these services (including expenditure on basic economic infrastructure transport, roads, and improved communications).
These, plus transparency, and development of a budget are key performance benchmarks. This is why the assessment of performance of State governments and the implementation of their SEEDS is such a significant step forward for the nation. DFID, World Bank and the EU have openly communicated that they would be using the outcome of the benchmark assessment exercise to “back the reforming Governments” with additional support. In fact, the EU used the occasion of the announcement of the kickoff of the assessment in a workshop for States in Abuja to announce that they would be concentrating their support in six leading States from the exercise.

The SEEDS document also spells out an ambitious agenda for fighting corruption and addressing the issues related to a large and under-performing public sector. Underlying SEEDS is the philosophy that government must change to allow space for the private sector to function effectively and invest in people, in the delivery of services. State governments, which are identified, as clearly reformist are deemed to be creating the right environment for inflow of investment and maintaining an open system that encourage true partnership for development. The States will be helped in addressing the issues of more effective governance including strengthening of communication and participatory governance systems. This involves the generation, analysis and dissemination of information and better coordination with local government areas (LGAs) and other donors in taking forward a State’s development agenda.

The States to be selected from the process will also enjoy immense credibility as well as the support professed by the donor community and the federal government. It will also signal that the government is working towards achieving standards applicable in developed economies. This has far-reaching implication for investment, tourisms and partnerships for development.

State governments are receiving accolades for their commitment to openness by putting themselves forward en masse to be assessed.  However, while there are those who insist that the federal government has not done enough, there is another school of thought which equally insist that the federal government deserves immense praise for its reform, anti-corruption and transparency programmes.  It is widely believed that the reform programmes of the federal government are taking roots and having a strong knock-on effects on States. Enormous commendation should go to the National Planning Commission under the steer of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President who spearheaded the SEEDS Benchmarking assessment. It is hoped that the process will continue and develop to become a strong continuous improvement tool in the hand of all levels of government in Nigeria.

The Criteria For Assessment

The four areas agreed for the assessment of States were: -POLICY, BUDGET and FISCAL MANAGEMENT, SERVICE DELIVERY and COMMUNICATION and TRANSPARENCY.
The top 11 performers are those states which did not score any red in all the four areas of assessment. Any state which scored a red, although may have earned a high cumulative score, yet it dropped in final ranking.

Policy
In the area of policy, the assessors asked this pertinent question  : “Does the State’s policies address the real needs of the people? Have all key stakeholders had a chance to have their say in the policies: Are the policies widely known to the people of the State?”  But that was not all.

The state government produces a SEEDS document (or equivalent) that defines policy targets in areas such as primary health care, basic education, pro-poor growth, etc and provides a reasoned and fully costed strategy of how they will be achieved.
Evidence is provided to show that a participatory process has been undertaken, and that the sate assembly, the State Executive Council, the private sector and people across the state have been involved in developing the SEEDS (or equivalent)
The SEEDS document (or equivalent) is published and made widely available in the form of a political commitment from the governor to the people.

Budget and fiscal management
For budget and fiscal management: “Does the State manage its budget and public funds in a transparent way so that resources are directed at achieving the priorities of the State?  Is there responsible and prudent fiscal management that effectively contains the negative impacts of revenue fluctuation?” There were other considerations.
The state government presents a coherent fiscal strategy, and sets budgets that are a reliable guide to actual spending.  The budget demonstrates a clear link between resource allocations and the poverty reduction strategies defined in SEEDS.   Timeless and participation in the budget formulation process
The state sets realistic budgets for IGR, VAT and statutory allocations based on historical collection patterns and FG indications; loans and grants are evidenced by signed agreements.
Robust procedures are in operation for the management and recording of debt and guarantees
Budget allocations are released on schedule and there is timely and accurate reporting and dissemination of in-year budget execution.  Accounts are prepared on time, audited according to statutory requirements, and audit recommendations are acted upon.  Government regularly monitors value for money in service delivery departments, agencies and enterprises.

Service Delivery
In terms of service delivery, the assessors sought to know “What efforts is the State making to improve service delivery to the citizens, both in terms of reach and standards? What is the quality of service rendered?”
There were other issues to consider.  An effective system of data collection, processing and dissemination is established, maintained and used to inform policy decisions.
The state government has a consistent policy on the delivery or services, informed by baseline data and through the SEEDS
Service delivery strategies in key sectors take due account of national and local policies, and other service providers, including other tiers of government.
Action has been taken to eliminate payroll fraud.
The Civil Service has been re-aligned towards service delivery.
Services delivered are tailored to the needs of citizens, and citizens have a mechanism to measure service quality.

Communication and Transparency
The last criterion, which is communication and transparency, “sought answers whether the State plans and implements policies in a transparent and accountable manner? Is procurement open? Are there measures against corruption? Do citizens have opportunity to question their leaders? How easily can citizens obtain information about the State’s finances?”
Other issues like plans to ensure “due process”, particularly in procurement procedures are developed and positively assessed against Federal Government due process standards publication of all procurement processes and payments for contracts above N10,000,000 in a national and state newspaper and easily accessible information on the award of contracts as well as payments effected (for example, through a dedicated website).  The state government takes, and publicises efforts to expose corruption practices, to prosecute corrupt individuals (at all levels of the hierachy) and to recover assets. People across the state have the opportunity to publicly question their leaders about performance, sector by sector.

Conclusion

What, might, perhaps, be consoling to some of the states who gave themselves for assessment is the fact that the set of criteria used in arriving at the final score did not take cognisance of the peculiar nature of some states.   In the area of Budget and Fiscal Management, a state like Borno scores 10.50, whereas the FCT, which scores 10.48, came second with the complementarity of Communication and Transparency and Policy where the latter scored 12.55 and 14 points respectively, while Borno scored 5.25 and 6 points, respectively.
The brighter side of life which the report has brought out is the fact that states that performed a bit below par, for whatever reason would now begin to embrace a more holistic approach to the issue of governance.
A state like Ogun, which scored 13.40 in the area of Budget and Fiscal Management, , scored 4 points in policy, 10 in service delivery but 3.85 in communication and transparency.
What this means is that sate governments must take the issue of transparency more seriously, just as policy and service delivery should not be allowed to suffer.