GOVERNMENT OF ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA. Stocktaking of Medium Term Sector Strategy performance in priority sectors in Enugu State

Transcription

1 GOVERNMENT OF ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA Stocktaking of Medium Term Sector Strategy performance in priority sectors in Enugu State November, 2015

2 Contents Abbreviations and acronyms... 2 Executive Summary... 3 Section 1: Introduction... 5 Background... 5 Approach to the stock-take... 6 Section 2: Findings from the stocktake... 7 Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations Annex 1: Interview Guide Annex 2: Logframe Performance Management Framework Analysis Annex 3: Consistency between MTSS goals and targets with SDP LPMF Annex 4: Standards for policy and strategy development Annex 5 SEAT Scores baseline to end line

3 Abbreviations and acronyms CSOs DPRS EnSG ENVMTIP ESEPC ExCo GAP IPSAS KDN KPIs LPMF M&E MDAs MoBP MTEF MTIP MTSS PMR SAVI SBS SDP SEAT SPARC VEC Civil Society Organisations Director Planning, Research and Statistics Enugu State Government Enugu Vision: Medium Term Implementation Plan Enugu State Economic Planning Commission Executive Council Good Agricultural Practices International Public Sector Accounting Standards Key Development Needs Key Performance Indicators Logframe Performance Management Framework Monitoring and Evaluation Ministries Departments and Agencies Ministry of Budget and Planning Medium Term Expenditure Framework Medium Term Implementation Plan Medium Term Sector Strategy Performance Management Review States Accountability and Voice Initiative State Bureau of Statistics State Development Plan Self Assessment and Evaluation Tool State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and Capability Visit Every Community 2

4 Executive Summary A stock taking exercise was undertaken to determine the impact of support provided by the State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and Capability (SPARC) Programme to the process of developing Medium Term Sector Strategies (MTSSs) in Enugu State. The methodology employed included review of previous reports, desk review of the MTSS documents, and structured interviews. The stock taking was based on the following questions: To what extent has the MTSS priorities reflected the priorities of the government as stated in the Enugu Vision Medium Term Implementation Plan (ENVMTIP)? To what extent have the strategies outlined in the MTSS been fully costed and full cost implications for programmes and projects reflected in the budget? To what extent has the MTSS objectives been reflected in the budget priorities and implemented accordingly? To what extent were the Performance Management Reviews (PMR) based on the MTSSs and also used in rolling over successive MTSSs? What is the level of institutional and human capacity to start and complete the MTSS process conforming to the strategy process and content standard? What are the sustainability frameworks of MTSS? To what extent is MTSS progress reflected in the State Self Evaluation and Assessment (SEAT) scores? (This will involve a comparative rating between the SEAT rating of MTSS process and content. The findings from the stock taking indicate that indeed, the state has benefited tremendously from SPARC support to MTSS development. There is the consciousness that well thought out strategies need to be developed so as to contribute to the achievement of the policies of government. The MTSS is an entrenched process in the planning and budgeting system of the state and reasonable effort has been made to link it to the annual budget. Capacities have also been built such that sector teams can do well on their own to develop MTSSs (as imperfect as they may be) without SPARC support. There is evidence that some MTSS projects are contained in the annual budget but there is no indication that the recurrent implications of those capital projects are determined and captured in the budget. There is evidence that the performance management review processes have also been entrenched and included as part of the planning and budgeting calendar. These are however not always based on the results framework of the MTSS but mostly based on the budget. The sustainability framework seems to be strong as there is evidence of uptake of the process and inclusion of MTSS call circular as a prerequisite to the issuance of Budget Call Circulars and the requirement for sectors to demonstrate linkage between their MTSSs and the budget. There is however need for additional capacity building to strengthen the process. The Enugu State Economic Planning Commission (ESEPC) and the sectors need to fully understand MTSS 3

5 costing techniques in order to determine the full cost implication (capital and recurrent) of the MTSS for inclusion in the annual budget. The SEAT rating from baseline to end line indicates that there is improvement in 50% of the key features but that there are still challenges in the other half. The ESEPC should continue to promote the MTSS process as a strategy that highlights the priorities of a sector and establishes a link between the priorities and the budgeting cycle. The costing process should be made a lot easier for sectors to comprehend and see the benefits. This way, sectors can see the benefits and they can use a robust strategy to influence annual budgeting. 4

6 Section 1: Introduction Background In 2014, SPARC s central Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) stream carried out a case study on the Annual PMR processes and its impact on the MTSSs in four states which included Enugu. The premise of the studies, were that the conduct of annual sector performance reviews and reporting contributes to improvements in the quality of and delivery of MTSSs. Two of the five priority sectors in Enugu State were covered as part of the review, namely education and works and infrastructure. There was also another case study done in 2013 to review the MTSSs of six of the seven priority sectors (Health, Works and Infrastructure, Water and Sanitation, Environment, Agriculture and Transport) in Enugu with a view to assessing improvements in their content standards and their linkage with the annual budget. The assessment was undertaken as a means of checking progress towards the outcome indicator in the programme logframe - Budgets adequately reflects MTSS. There was also a full case study entitled Medium Term Sector Strategies: Their Content Standards and their Influence on State Budgets which focused on the rolled-over MTSS of five of the six MTSSs that were reviewed in The one that was not assessed was the education MTSS which was not available as at the time the review was conducted. The MTSSs considered during this assessment were Works and Infrastructure, Environment, Transport, Agriculture, Water and Sanitation, all prepared in 2013 for period This case study provided a detailed analysis on the content of these MTSSs and their read-across to the budget. Findings from the case studies indicate that the support by SPARC for MTSS development has led to a paradigm shift towards a more robust planning process that is based on cost considerations and linked to budgeting. Page 7, of the MTSS Review Report 2013 specifically noted that there was a marked improvement in the content quality of the MTSS and good evidence of emerging reflection of MTSSs in budgets, as a result of work done over the years. However a major challenge that has impeded progress is the fact that there is almost always a disjoint between what is in the MTSS documents and what happens during implementation. The most constraining factor is seen to be the budgeting processes, which only takes account of the MTSS projects without considering both the capital and recurrent implications. In addition, PMR processes have created a paradigm shift from activity reporting to a more structured reporting of outputs and outcomes. However, the uptake of PMR skills has been slightly slow perhaps due to the traditional focus of the sectors on activity reporting coupled with absence of baseline data upon which progress achieved could be assessed. There is also absence of active M&E reporting. As the SPARC programme approaches an end, states are undertaking further studies in order to better understand reform processes and the challenges. This is to enable the teams tell a robust narrative on the reforms that have taken place in the states, while highlighting the role of SPARC in the processes. With this background, this stocktake sought to deepen the issues, concerns and lessons learned from the case studies. As mentioned earlier, the case studies covered only two of the priority sectors, but this stocktake covered all the priority sectors Agriculture, Environment, Transport, Water, and Works and Infrastructure. 5

7 Approach to the stock-take The stocktake adopted two core methods of structured interviews and desk analysis. Review of the case studies as well as MTSS and PMR of the priority sectors was undertaken in order to tease out the major issues around the following questions: To what extent has the MTSS priorities reflected the priorities of the government as stated in the ENVMTIP? To what extent have the strategies outlined in the MTSS been fully costed and full cost implications for programmes and projects reflected in the budget? To what extent has the MTSS objectives been reflected in the budget priorities and implemented accordingly? To what extent were the PMRs based on the MTSSs and also used in rolling over successive MTSSs? What is the level of institutional and human capacity to start and complete the MTSS process conforming to the strategy process and content standard? What are the sustainability frameworks of MTSS? To what extent is the MTSS progress reflected in the SEAT scores? (This will involve a comparative rating between the SEAT rating of MTSS process and content. From this process, a list of major issues that have been challenging during the process of implementation over the review period, were noted. In-depth interviews and discussions were held with the Directors of Planning Research and Statistics (DPRSs) of the priority sectors, in order to further explore the challenges and things that didn t work. The interviews and discussions sought views about why things didn t work and what can be realistically done to ensure that the MTSS processes are sustained beyond the SPARC programme period. 6

8 Section 2: Findings from the stocktake The extent to which MTSS priorities reflected the priorities of government The Enugu State Government (EnSG) in 2008, undertook a comprehensive assessment of the needs of each of the 472 communities in the State through the Visit Every Community (VEC) Initiative. The VEC report identified a total of 1,888 Key Developmental Needs (KDN) which were thereafter prioritised in line with the economic potential and comparative advantages of the communities. The VEC report formed an important basis for articulating programmes and projects that are contained in the Enugu Vision 4:2020 First Implementation Plan. Governor Sullivan Chime also introduced a high level policy framework, the 4-Point Agenda, which also provided the basis for developing Enugu Vision 4:2020 and its Implementation Plans. The Vision posits the State to be among the first four most economically developed and self-sufficient States of the Federation by the year Drawing from the 4-Point Agenda and the State Vision 4:2020, the first Medium Term Implementation Plan (MTIP) [ ] aimed to pursue the following: Provision of world class physical infrastructure; Stimulating economic expansion and employment generation; Facilitating rural and urban development; and Ensuring service delivery, good governance as well as security and wellbeing of all the people of Enugu State. A review of the plan was undertaken in June 2011, in order for the plan to reflect economic and fiscal update for The appointment of a new cabinet which coincided with this period afforded the opportunity of tapping from the newly appointed sector heads new initiatives that shaped the revision of the policy document. In May 2013, the Executive Council (ExCo) again reviewed performance of the state policies and programmes. The Governor chaired this accountability forum. One outcome of this assessment of progress was a redefinition of policy priorities for all sectors. In August 2013, all the sectors reviewed their policy thrusts and programmes following from the annual performance reporting on implementation of their programmes and projects. Prior to these reviews and assessments, the ESEPC had carried out a technical review assessment of implementation of the MTIP. In addition, there was the VEC audit report which is an onsite verification of development projects and programmes of government during the plan period. In June 2014, the Ministry of Budget and Planning (MoBP) in liaison with the ESEPC updated the fiscal and economic outlook of the state culminating in a budget policy statement which guided sectoral re-allocations. These reallocations required that the state development plan be restructured to give sectors sufficient guidance to ensure greater focus on programmes and projects with outcome focus that will afford greater benefit to the people of Enugu State. This restructuring led to the development of the second MTIP ( ). SPARC at inception, identified priority sectors together with government partners Agriculture, Environment, Transport, Water and Works and Infrastructure - and began to support them to develop MTSSs. The ESEPC was also identified as the institutional home for 7

9 reforms and thus anchored the activities. ESEPC then argued that the concept of pilot (priority) sectors would delineate the other sectors and pushed for the inclusion of all sectors into SPARC support. Whereas SPARC tended to maintain the priority sector focus, ESEPC found ways of including other sectors into the activities. The effect has been that over time, all the sectors of Enugu State have evolved MTSSs. With ESEPC also anchoring the broader planning activities in the state, it was relatively straightforward to ensure that sectors/mdas maintained a linkage between the state government s priorities and those of their MTSSs. Indeed, one of the strategic objectives of the revised MTIP ( ) is that sectors should continually generate and consolidate ensuing M&E data from the MTIP and their MTSS implementation to better guide policy and strategy work of the state in future. It is also expected that the State Bureau of Statistics (SBS) will become fully functional during this plan period. The SBS will facilitate central analyses, dissemination and use of M&E data from sectors. In the coming years, baseline data is expected to be significantly available for central and state planning. From the foregoing, there is a consciousness that achieving the goals of MTIP depends on the progress made on sectoral MTSSs; and that the programme, projects and costs articulated in the MTIP document are reflections of those in the sectoral MTSS documents. A comparative analysis of the Four- Point Agenda, the ENVMTIP and the MTSSs of priority sectors was done and a strong link between them was observed. The current revision of the ENVMTIP is concomitant with the revision of the sector policies strategies. At the August 2015 ExCo retreat, new policies were defined by sector leaders which marked the commencement of MTSS by sectors. An analysis of the priority sector MTSS documents shows that the first sets of MTSSs acted as a follow up to the first MTIP; which then provided the relevant inputs to the second MTIP. The subsequent MTSS documents also reflected priorities of government as captured in the MTIP. Accounts from governance index assessments of the State Accountability and Voice Initiative (SAVI) in the state opines that the VEC policy of government which started about four years ago has provided the vehicle through which the state and Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) undertake planning and budgeting. After every VEC exercise, the report which incorporates all inputs of the citizens and civil society organisations (CSOs) is usually forwarded to the ESEPC for action. ESEPC in turn, is then able to ensure that sectors/mdas maintain focus on citizens and government priorities. The extent to which MTSS objectives are reflected in the budget priorities and implemented The typical process of budgeting starts with the issuance of MTSS call circulars which contain guidance on the principles for developing MTSSs by sectors as well as emphasize the need to ensure that the sector strategies are taken forward to inform the annual budget. This is followed by the issuance of the budget call circulars to MDAs. There are ceilings attached to these circulars, that is, the project amounts that are available to each MDA for the year under consideration. It is expected that the ceilings will guide whatever budget calculations that MDAs will undertake. A major consideration for the ceilings is the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) of the state. Part of the guidance for sectors/mdas in preparing their budgets is the need to ensure that these are in line with the priorities stipulated in the MTSS 8

10 and other strategy documents. Critical to this is the need to ensure that all the activities, programmes and projects outlined in the MTSSs are fully costed, including both the capital and recurrent implications. These costs, when determined, should be systematically prioritised and transferred to the budget document. After the initial budget preparations, there are bilateral sessions with each sector/mda where budget estimates are defended. It is expected that defence will take cognisance of the linkages between the estimates and the objectives as stipulated in MTSS and other strategies. An assessment of the MTSS and budget documents including interactions with respondents during this assessment, suggest that this is usually the case. However what happens after the budgets have been approved is usually what causes the variance. In all the MDAs as there is almost always a disjoint between what is in the MTSS documents and what happens during implementation. A logframe performance management framework analysis done in early 2015 (Annex 2) shows that variance in sector share between the MTSS and the 2015 approved budget was between 27% to 85% for the priority sectors. This situation questions the consistency of medium term sector plans and budgets with resource envelops. There are still gaps in ensuring that the MTSS priorities are fully reflected in the budget owing to the fact that the state is yet to adopt the activity /programme based budgeting. Although some of the MTSS projects still manage to find their way into the annual budget, there is always a marked variance between approved budget and actual spending. A major shortcoming also identified was the timing of the MTSS and budgeting processes which usually never synchronised, although this has improved with the 2016 budget cycle. It should be noted that ESEPC is contemplating the development of an integrated budget calendar that will ensure effective synchrony of the PMR, MTSS and budget preparation processes. Figure 1 represents an assessment of the sector budget allocations and implementation for a sample sector (Works and Infrastructure) from The figures depict budget releases as a percentage of the allocated budgets. The figures show that there is always a variance between the budgeted estimates and the actual funds that are released for implementation. This occurs at both recurrent and capital expenditure levels. Figure 1 shows that in 2012 for example, the actual budget released for capital expenditure was almost one and a half of what was originally budgeted, whereas in the previous year, there was almost no capital budget release, as just about 1% of the capital budget allocation was accessed in the 2011 budget. 9

11 Discussants mentioned political considerations as a major issue that comes to play in causing the variances, stressing that Figure 1: Works and Infrastructure Sector politicians often respond on an adhoc basis to issues raised by citizens. 200 When this happens, issues and 142 priorities that have been identified 150 and costed in the MTSS may be 100 dropped in favour of issues that are seen as political priorities during implementation whether or not they 29 have been captured by the MTSS Another major challenge that causes Recurrent Capital poor linkages between MTSS objectives and budget implementation is mandate duplication within some of the sectors. In the environment sector for example, there appears to be mandate problems basically emanating from laws and edicts establishing the different components of the sector. In those documents, functions and roles are interwoven, and there are different interpretations, to the extent that individual components interpret these to suit their own conceived agenda other than the broader sector agenda for the state. This often leads to protracted tussle of who does what and where. Because responsibilities are not well specified or clarified, then there is most often poor coordination of the sectoral activities, and hence poor results. The extent to which the PMRs were based on the MTSSs To facilitate the production of PMRs, SPARC supported the provision of clear guidelines for this process and provided training on its use. Like the MTSS processes, ESEPC also coordinates the PMR processes and have promoted the use of the guidelines, which clearly stipulates that the PMRs should be based on the MTSS documents. Participants at the assessment interviews stated that like the MTSS support, the support to PMR processes has no doubt yielded positive results in the state. It has created a paradigm shift from activity reporting to a more structured reporting of outputs and outcomes. There is also evidence of the take up of the process. In 2013 for example, the Enugu State Governor asked ministries to make a presentation about their progress and performance. ESEPC approached SPARC and the performance review template was suggested, and was used by many Commissioners to prepare their presentations. Five Commissioners (who did not use the PMR template) were dropped because they could not properly articulate their performance. There are however major challenges to the process. The PMR case studies had revealed that the process of taking on-board recommendations from PMRs into MTSS revisions have been generally weak. Several issues have been identified as being responsible for the non-reflection of PMR recommendations into the rollover MTSS. Across the sectors/mdas, midline managers (mostly Directors) are responsible for writing the PMRs. According to discussants, they may not be willing to put serious recommendations in the PMRs if they are not instructed by their superiors, that is, more senior officers. 10

12 The uptake of PMR skills has been slightly slow perhaps due to the traditional focus of the sectors on activity reporting. Consequently, the analyses that go into the PMR reports are often weak, and hence the recommendations therefrom, are also weak. Such weak recommendations are therefore not reflected in any roll-over MTSS. Added to the above is the seeming low level of commitment from top management and planning unit officers in MDAs, including untimely release of data by other professionals in MDAs. There is also the challenge of poor baseline data, which means that MDAs are unable to showcase baseline data on which planned activities are based. Consequently, the linkage of PMR to MTSS has been weak due partly to paucity of data for analysis. In addition to this, the evaluation of policies, strategies, and programmes as stipulated by the PMR guidelines, are not performance driven; thus reporting is still heavily activity driven. The report content is then weak, especially the section where outcomes should inform policy and strategy for the MDAs vis-a-vis recommendations. Many of the recommendations are thus operational rather than strategic. The extent to which PMRs are used in MTSS roll over ESEPC, as part of the planning and budgeting process, usually sends out call circular for sectors to begin the process of performance reviews. This usually happens in the month of March ahead of the issuance of MTSS call circular. There is however no evidence to show that the results of the PMRs were used in the development of successive MTSSs. In June 2014 during the development of the MTSSs, attempts were made to develop strategies that drew on the PMR. This was facilitated by SPARC through a work based technical support to ensure sector teams understood the objective of the PMRs as a tool for adjustment of plans in line with desired outcomes. Strategies to address challenges encountered in the course of MTSS implementation were developed and included in the MTSS. One major constraint in basing MTSS roll over on PMR is lack of baseline data and weaknesses in the MTSS results framework which undermines the strength of the analysis being undertaken and by extension the willingness of and ability of the review teams to come up with strong recommendations that can feed into successive MTSSs. In addition to that, the practice of active information gathering has not fully been imbibed by MDAs, so they do not usually have sufficient information to inform successive MTSSs. Only in 2014 was an attempt been made to ensure that PMR findings are directly fed in to the succeeding MTSSs for some of the priority sectors. The extent of improvement in the quality of MTSSs developed The respondents attested to the fact that over time, their capacity had been built in policy and strategy development process. Over time, there has been sustained improvement in the quality of MTSSs developed by sectors. The SPARC supported MTSS process and content standards served as a veritable tool in ensuring continuous improvement in the policy and strategy making processes. An analysis undertaken to determine the compliance of the MTSSs with the strategy process and content standards indicate that successive years better reflected good practice process and content standards. 11

13 ESEPC has been promoting the adoption of best practice strategy process and content standard and in 2014 SPARC supported the five priority sectors to implement some of the strategy process standards including incorporation of stakeholder views through the understanding and application of approaches to achieving public involvement in policies and strategies. MTSS teams in each sector have been established and have received support on how to develop MTSS according to all the content standards from the ESEPC by ensuring clearer understanding of the annual MTSS call circular being issued by the ESEPC and more familiarity with the Enugu State MTSS Development Guide. ESEPC has facilitated stakeholder consultation for sector MTSS and these views have shaped the MTSSs especially for the priority sectors. MTSSs of the priority sectors were reviewed and the methodology showed that stakeholder views were obtained and included in the MTSSs. What are the sustainability frameworks of the MTSS (The extent of political commitment to the MTSS process) It was clear from the stock taking process that MTSS as a planning and costing tool is well understood and accepted in the state. The ESEPC which is the central planning authority has taken ownership of the process. The policy and plan department of the ESEPC is responsible for driving the process which is already entrenched. At the MDA level, there is the Department of Planning, Research and Statistics headed by Directors of Planning whose capacities have been built on MTSS development process. The MTSS development having been entrenched as part of the Planning and Budgeting calendar is an indication of the fact that it has come to stay. There is also a legal framework in the sense that the ESEPC Law cap 54 of 1992 empowers the ESEPC to guide the planning processes of the state and to always obtain capital and recurrent estimates to ensure that they are in line with the policies and plans. The ESEPC has taken the MTSS process beyond the priority sectors to cover the 17 sectors in the state. There are however still challenges with respect to fully aligning the MTSS with the annual budget. The 2015 annual budget was developed in line with the International Public Service Accounting Standards (IPSAS) which is project based. This could be the trigger that is required for the state to commence activity based budgeting. The respondents when asked if government was providing funding for the MTSS process responded that the Commissioners needed to understand that there was need to make budgetary provision for MTSS development as they had hitherto not been doing that. SEAT rating for MTSS The key feature of the SEAT that relate directly to the MTSS include P&S1b.P&S2, P&S3, P&S5, P&S6 and P&S7. While 50% of the key features P&S1b, P&S3 and P&S 7 show improvement in the SEAT rating, 33.3% remained unchanged and 16.7% showed a decrease. It is significant to note that P&S 5 which remained Cs through baseline to end line assessed the human and organisational capacity for implementation of MTSSs. 12

14 This was also evident from the interviews in which it was discovered that although ESEPC had undertaken corporate planning and realigned their structure with their functions, adequate staffing remains a challenge due to embargo on employment and also the high rate of retirement. A quick analysis of the ESEPC staff composition indicates that there is dominance of lower level staff (more than 60% of the staff are between level 8 and 10). There is only one Director and one Deputy Director in the whole of ESEPC. 13

15 Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The support by SPARC for MTSS and PMR development to the state can be said to have been beneficial because of the paradigm shifts towards planning processes that are based on cost considerations and linked to budgeting. There have been some shifts from activity reporting to a more structured reporting of outputs at least and efforts are being geared towards outcome reporting. ESEPC should be commended for making efforts that ensured MTSS development processes have gone beyond the priority sectors supported by SPARC. There is no doubt that the MTSS documents capture the state government s priorities. However, a number of challenges have militated against the effectiveness of the MTSS and PMR development processes: The disjoint between what was indicated in the MTSS and what is eventually implemented often led to discouragement to the people who are involved in developing MTSSs. This is because the feeling is that the effort committed into the MTSS development process is not reflected in the implementation. This disjoint could largely be attributed to the non-adoption of activity / programme budgeting; Inadequate costing of the MTSS: presently, only the capital component of the MTSS is costed which makes the costing of the MTSS incomprehensive and incomplete, mainly because the state has not been adequately trained neither have they adopted the SPARC provided MTSS costing template; State government partners often see the MTSS development and implementation, and the production of PMRs as separate and discrete activities, thus losing sight of the linkages that should occur between the two processes; The seeming lack of available data for baselines have often meant that the analyses that go into the PMR reports are weak, and hence the recommendations therefrom, are also weak. Such weak recommendations are therefore not reflected in any rollover MTSS; Most of the MTSSS are not assessed against human and organisational capacity to implement them and so are at best only partially implementable. Recommendations The MTSS process should continue to be promoted as a strategy that highlights the priorities of a sector and establishes a link between the priorities and the budgeting cycle. The costing process should be made a lot easier for sectors to comprehend and see the benefits. This way, sectors can see the benefits that they can use a robust strategy to influence annual budgeting. The SBS should be supported to facilitate the collection, analyses, dissemination and use of M&E data from sectors. This way, SBS can ensure that baseline data is increasingly available for MDA and state planning. An initial process could be to partner with sectors like Health and Education that already have a Management Information System in place; by analysing the data and using these to demonstrate what is possible. This will help improve the comprehensiveness of the MTSS results framework. Costing of the MTSS should be comprehensive and complete, ensuring that both the capital and recurrent implications of the MTSS are fully costed. The costing template should be 14

16 further simplified and made more user-friendly in order to achieve this. One possible way of achieving this is for the state to adapt the costing template to the method that it currently employs in determining its personnel and other recurrent costs. This should constitute a recurrent cost component that should add to the capital cost component to give a full cost of the MTSS. MDAs need to ensure that the PMR is based on the results frameworks contained in the MTSS documents. In addition, there is a need to ensure that the results frameworks are robust and implemented in line with the frequency of data collection against the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). There is a need to ensure that state government partners do not see the MTSS implementation and PMR processes as different and discrete activities. The links between these two needs to be clear and implemented at all times. This way, the analysis undertaken in the PMR could become more robust. With deeper analysis, it should be more straightforward to tease out stronger and clearer recommendations, which should feed into the processes of MTSS roll-over. 15

17 Annex 1: Interview Guide ENU - P&S 23 Structured Interview Guide for MTSS Stocktaking from 2008 to What is your position/ designation? 2. Were you involved in the MTSS development process in the state? 3. How many sectors are involved? 4. How many times has the MTSS been rolled over? 5. How is the MTSS development process initiated? 6. To what extent has the MTSSs reflected the priorities of government? 7. To what extent are the MTSS priorities reflected in the budget? 8. To what extent are the MTSS priorities implemented? 9. Are Performance Reviews conducted prior to MTSS development / roll over? 10. To what extent are the PMRs based on MTSSs? 11. To what extent does the outcome of the PMR inform MTSS roll over? 12. To what extent have the MTSS development process improved over time. 13. What is the level of political commitment to the MTSS development process? 16

18 Annex 2: Logframe Performance Management Framework Analysis 2015 Summary of LPMF 1 Analysis State and LPMF Details State: Enugu Date: 26/06/15 Indicator: Outcome Indicator 1 Milestone: (bii) Within priority sectors, MTSS goals and objectives are consistent with the State Development Plan (SDP) and can be linked to the budget. Summary of Analysis In Enugu, The priority sectors supported by SPARC are Agriculture, Environment, Water, Works and Infrastructure and Transport. The analysis will be conducted on MTSS and the approved 2015 budget. MTSS Budgets 2015 N Billions Sector Share of Total Agriculture % Environment % Transport % Infrastructure % Water % Totals % Approved EnSG Budgets 2015 N Billions Sector Share of Total Agriculture % Environment 1.5 6% Transport % Infrastructure % Water % Totals % 1 Log frame Performance Management Framework 17

19 Variance in Sector Share between MTSS and Approved Budgets Sector 2015 Agriculture 27% Environment 50% Transport 85% Infrastructure -36% Water -57% Total variance 69% 18

20 Annex 3: Consistency between MTSS goals and targets with SDP LPMF Summary of LPMF Analysis State and LPMF Details State: Enugu Date: 12/10/2012 Indicator: Outcome Indicator 1 Sub-Milestone: (bi) Within priority sectors, MTSS goals and objectives are consistent with the SDP and can be linked to the budget. Summary of Analysis This is the assessment of the priority sector MTSSs for consistency with the ENVMTIP. There are seven MTSS sectors, namely: Education, Environment, Agriculture, Water, Works and Infrastructure, Transport and Health. Following analysis only covers Agriculture the remaining six remains to be done. Agric MTSS and Revised ENVMTIP were used for this analysis. Agric Sector Policy thrusts ENVMTIP Policy thrust Consistent Achieve net self-sufficiency in food production by the year 2015 and export 80% of total output by Achievement of self-sufficiency in food production 2 Strengthening the production of agro in-puts required for secondary and tertiary production 3 Export of agricultural products to local and international markets 4 Improve product diversification, processing and storage systems 5 Promoting Private sector and foreign investment in Agriculture 6 Strengthening access to market and micro-finance Achievement of self-sufficiency in food production Strengthening the production of agro in-puts required for secondary and tertiary production Export of agricultural products to local and international markets Improve product diversification, processing and storage systems Promoting Private sector and foreign investment in Agriculture Strengthening access to market and micro-finance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 19

21 Agric Sector Policy thrusts ENVMTIP Policy thrust Consistent 7 Enhance the capacity of small holder farmers in agricultural production Enhance the capacity of small holder farmers in agricultural production Yes 8 Job creation and poverty reduction through agriculture 9 Leveraging on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) 10 Improve service delivery and agricultural extension services 11 Promoting Integrated Agricultural Practices Job creation and poverty reduction through agriculture Leveraging on GAP Improve service delivery and agricultural extension services Promoting Integrated Agricultural Practices Conclusion: In the Agric sector, 100% of MTSS policy thrusts are directly consistent with ENVMTIP policy thrusts. Yes Yes Yes Yes 20

22 Annex 4: Standards for policy and strategy development Strategy Process Standards 1. Politicians and the Central Planning Ministry are providing timely annual policy guidance and envelopes, based upon the SDP, within which sector strategy can be developed (SEAT 1A). 2. Approaches to achieving public involvement in strategy making are understood and utilised (SEAT 7). 3. Strategies are published, and a political commitment to implement them is being made attached to service charters where appropriate (SEAT 8). 4. MTSS teams (or committees or focus groups) in each sector have been established, and receive support on how to develop MTSS according to all the contents standards listed adjacent from the central planning Ministry (SEAT 2). 5. Sector strategies are developed into (or iteratively on the basis of) sector implementation or action plans. Strategy Content Standards 1. Objectives are output and outcome based, and the sector strategy includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (SEAT 2). 2. Sector Strategies cover three years, and rolling versions demonstrate changes made on the basis of performance reviews. 3. Sector Strategy demonstrates specific means of achieving or contributing to the achievement of relevant Policy Statements in the State Development Plan. 4. It is possible to discern in the Sector Strategy consistency with National and Regional Policy Guidelines (SEAT 4). 5. Sector Strategies incorporate reference to cross government and cross-stakeholder working (SEAT 5). 6. Sector Strategies are financially feasible (SEAT 1B). 7. Evidence including research findings are used in the development of strategies. (SEAT 3). 8. Sector strategies demonstrate that there is the human resource and organisational capacity to implement them (SEAT 6). 9. Sector strategies demonstrate that public views have been taken into account (SEAT 7). 10. Sector strategies demonstrate their contributions to MDG achievement and to Gender and Social Inclusion targets. 21

23 Annex 5 SEAT Scores baseline to end line Key Feature Enugu Enugu Enugu P&S 1A Provision by Politicians of Policy Guidelines and Realistic Budget Envelopes C+ C A Direction P&S 1B Sector Policies are Financially Feasible B D A P&S 2 Outcome Basis of Sector Policy Statements & Availability of Central Planning Support for MDA Strategy Development C+ B C+ P&S 3 Research and Baseline Information Used in Policy Definition D C C P&S 4 National or International Legislative and Regulatory Policies or Guidelines are Considered in Sector Strategies C+ B A P&S 5 Strategies Take Account of the Potential Actions of Other Key Actors B B C P&S 6 P&S 7 P&S 8 Sector Strategies are Consistent with the Human and Organisational capacity to Implement Them The Views and Opinions of the Customers Using Sector Services Have Been Sought and Integrated into Policies and Strategies The Government has Signed up to a Public Commitment to Deliver Policy Results that have been shown to be Feasible C C C C C B C C B+ P&S Average C+ C+ B+ 22