Report on GAPVOD (Ghana Association of Private Voluntary Organizations in Development)

Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process by the Government of the Republic of Niger

Mission Report v0.1 - April 28, 2009 Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process by the Government of the Republic of Niger

Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process by the Government of the Republic of Niger Title – Mission Report Ministry of the Economy and Finance – General Directorate for the Assessment of Development Policies Responsible Partners Secretariat of OECD/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Joint Venture on Managing for Development Results (JV MfDR) UNDP Niger – Good Governance Program Creator CAP-Scan Team Contributors Subject (Taxonomy) Evaluation – Capacities – MfDR – GRD (French for MfDR) Date of Approval Audience CAP-Scan participants, Ministries and Institutions, and Partners

List of versions Version Date of revision Author(s) Summary of revisions 0.1 28 April 2008 Boureima Gado First version, distributed to the CAP-Scan Team and the Samer Hachem Ministry of the Economy and Finance

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Summary 4 1.1 Approach and participation 4 1.2 Main outcomes 5 2 The CAP-Scan process in Niger 9 3 Methodology and outcomes 10 3.1 General approach 10 3.2 Preparatory phase: Scope and adaptation of methodology and tools 11 3.2.1 Scope 11 3.2.2 Readjustment of the analytical matrix 11 3.2.3 Definition of roles and responsibilities 14 3.3 Workshop methodology and outcomes 15 3.3.1 Self-assessment 15 3.3.2 Determination of priorities 19 3.3.3 Preparation of the action plan 19 4. Dissemination and follow-up 22 4.1 Communication strategy 26 4.2 Monitoring mechanism 28 4.3 Information sharing for future CAP-Scan exercises 29 5 Subsequent steps 30 6 Evaluation of the CAP-Scan mission 31 7 Annexes 33 7.1 The CAP-Scan matrix 34 7.2 Definition of capacity-building stages 37 7.3 Summary of meetings and activities 38 7.4 List of CAP-Scan participants 39 7.5 CAP-Scan Journal 46 7.6 Correspondence between CAP-Scan and other frameworks and documents 62 7.7 Documents considered 68 7.7.1 National planning 68 7.7.2 Studies and analyses 68 7.7.3 Context documents 68

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 3 Report on the Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process by the Government of the Republic of Niger – March-April, 2009

1 Summary

1.1 Approach and Participation

CAP-Scan is an analytical framework and a participatory process for assessing and building Managing for Development Results (MfDR) capacities.1

Basically, CAP-Scan is a self-assessment exercise, through which a group of senior civil servants evaluate country capacities in relation to the following five MfDR pillars:

 Leadership  Monitoring and Evaluation  Accountability and Partnerships  Planning and Budgeting  Statistical Data Processing

The CAP-Scan matrix provides a breakdown of the above pillars into evaluation criteria or dimensions.2 Self-assessment consists in rating progress on a continuous capacity-building scale, divided into the following four major development stages:3

 Awareness  Experimentation  Transition  Sustainable Implementation

The CAP-Scan end result consists of the identification of priorities, based on self- assessment, and the formulation of a specific action plan focused on those priorities.

The implementation of CAP-Scan in Niger is part of the Government's ongoing efforts to put MfDR into practice, and in particular, to set up within the various Ministries units responsible for planning and evaluation, with a view to adapting the Accelerated Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012 (ADPRS). Niger is one of the countries that have established a national Community of MfDR Practitioners (CoP). UNDP Niger has provided logistical and technical support for the implementation of CAP-Scan through the Support/Guidance Team for Governance (EACG) in the framework of the UNDP Good-Governance Program.

1 In full: "Managing for Development Results Capacity Scan." 2 The matrix is presented in Annex A. 3 The stages are described in Annex B.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 4 In a broader context, the implementation of the CAP-Scan process in Niger is part of the pilot phase launched in Mauritania in July 2008.

The following Ministries and Institutions were directly involved in the CAP-Scan process:

 Ministry of Public Health (MSP)  Ministry of Education (MEN)  Ministry of the Economy and Finance(MEF)  Ministry of Civil Service and Labor (MFP/T)  Ministry of Regional Planning and Community Development (MAT/DC)  Ministry of the Environment and Desertification Control (ME/LCD)  Ministry of Agricultural Development (MDA)  Ministry of Water Supply (MH)  Ministry of Livestock Breeding and Industries (ME/IA)  Ministry of Public Works (MEQ)  Poverty Reduction Strategy Permanent Secretariat (PS/PRS)  National Institute of Statistics (INS)

The following bodies and technical and financial partners (TFPs) were invited to participate in the workshops:

 High Commission for State Modernization (HCME)  Development Analysis and Forecasting Unit (CAPED)  Program for Good Governance and Better Shared Growth (PBG/CMR)  Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)  World Bank  UNDP

This report is the outcome of the contributions of all CAP-Scan participants, whom the CAP-Scan Team would like to thank for their time and high-quality interventions in the discussions.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 5 1.2 Main Outcomes

The first CAP-Scan outcome, formulated at the end of the first workshop day, is a self-assessment of MfDR capacities. The following chart recapitulates that self- assessment with respect to the five MfDR pillars, adapted to Niger’s context:

Average per pillar

Leadership

Evaluation & Monitoring

Accountability & Partnerships avr-09

Planning & Budgeting

Statistical Capacity

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00

The first CAP-Scan outcome is summarized in the above chart, which shows that pillar averages range between 1.50 and 2.50, with an overall average slightly over 2. On the whole, these figures reflect MfDR capacities between the phases of experimentation and transition. At that stage, although still viewed as isolated efforts, capacity-building initiatives begin to be organized on a broader basis and to bring about the first changes.

Progress seems to have been most substantial in relation to the pillars "Accountability and Partnerships" (including, for instance, the dimension "Parliament's role in oversight of Government action") and "Statistical Data Processing" (including, for instance, the dimension "Statistics strategy and plan") and weakest in relation to the pillar "Planning and Budgeting" (focused on the budgeting process and its links to planning and the results-based approach).

The above analysis is developed further in Section 3 below ("Methodology and Outcomes"), where outcomes are detailed by dimension.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 6 The second CAP-Scan outcome, reached through self-evaluation by multi-criteria analysis based on dimensions, is the identification of dimensions for which measures for improving MfDR capacities should be taken as a matter of priority. In the afternoon of the second day of the final workshop, a proposal specifying priority dimensions was presented to the Secretaries General (SGs), whose observations were noted and incorporated.

The following priority dimensions were identified:

 "Leadership" pillar

o Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the Administration o Integration of the decentralization dimension o Human resources management

 "Monitoring and Evaluation" pillar

o System for measuring user satisfaction o Administration performance geared to development results

 "Planning and Budgeting" pillar

o Budget preparation based on objectives and results

The third CAP-Scan outcome consists in an action plan addressing the above priorities with a view to building MfDR capacities within a time horizon of six months to a year. This action plan was drawn up on the third day of the final workshop and is detailed in Section 3 below ("Methodology and Outcomes").

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 7 2 The CAP-Scan process in Niger

In a broader context, the implementation of the CAP-Scan process in Niger is part of the pilot phase launched in Mauritania in July 2008.

The following Ministries and Institutions were directly involved in the CAP-Scan process:

The following bodies and technical and financial partners (TFPs) were invited to participate in the workshops:

In order to gain experience before envisaging an extension to the Government as a whole in future CAP-Scan exercises, only a limited number of Ministries and other

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 8 bodies have been involved in this first self-assessment, which, nevertheless, covered the entire area of Government action without focusing on any particular sector.

The coordination of the CAP-Scan Team at the national level was ensured by Yayé Seydou, Director General for Development Policies, DGEPD, and his team.

The various workshops were conducted by a team of two facilitators (Boureima Gado and Samer Hachem, consultants) and two rapporteurs (Messrs. Ali Galadima and Sitti Fidel Anani, DGEPD).

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 9 3 Methodology and Outcomes

3.1 General Approach

The CAP-Scan process was divided into the following four major phases:

Preparation Sectoral Workshops Final Workshop Post-CAP-Scan Activities •Individual meetings • Self assessment- •Program Finalization • Identification of priorities • Institutionnalization Framework Adaptation Framework review • Action Plan • Action Plan follow-up • Communication and implementation • Follow-up action plan • Organization of- CAP- • Early meetings • Synthesis • Report Scan activities at regular intervals

09 – 16 March 17 March - April 17 April 21- - April 23

This document describes the first three phases. The fourth phase consists in monitoring the implementation of the action plan finalized in the workshop.

The first phase included all preparatory work, particularly validation of the scope of analysis, finalization of the list of participants and adaptation of the matrix to Niger’s context.

The second phase consisted in meetings by department, with the twofold objective of gathering observations on the matrix adapted to Niger’s context and launching the self-assessment in a core group—which consolidated all results by Ministry in order to identify any possible points of divergence—in preparation for discussions by the entire group of participants in the third phase.

The third stage consisted in a workshop, attended by an inter-sectoral group of senior officials of the Administration, towards the following objectives:  Ensuring finalization of the CAP-Scan self-assessment by the entire group of participants  Analyzing results in order to formulate an early draft of action priorities  Setting priorities for MfDR capacity-building action  Formulating a common platform of priorities with the SGs  Developing an action plan  Defining post-CAP-Scan steps and monitoring

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 10 3.2 Preparatory Phase: Scope and Adaptation of Methodology and Tools

3.2.1 Scope

The preparatory phase began by determining the scope of analysis and choosing between the following two options:

 An inter-sectoral analysis approach focused on the MfDR capacities of the Administration as a whole  A sectoral analysis approach focused on the MfDR capacities of the participating Ministries

The first option was adopted, mainly because it offered the possibility of a broad view without hiding any differences in capacity development between individual Ministries or sectors.

3.2.2 Readjustment of the Analytical Matrix The matrix used in Mauritania for the first implementation of the CAP-Scan procedure in July 2008 was used as a basis.

The changes introduced are summarized in the following table:

Pillar / Dimension Pillar / Dimension Commentary on Changes Mauritania Niger Leadership Leadership Clarification of the decision level through the inclusion, as an example, of a decision issued by Commitment Commitment decree or taken by the Cabinet in the definition of Transition Modification of the heading and of the Clarity and definitions of the development stages by Clarity and articulation of introducing the harmonization of the time articulation of vision development scales and terminologies of the various program orientations frameworks Responsibility and delegation at the Responsibility and level of senior Modification of the heading delegation officials of the Administration Involvement of non- Participation of non- governmental Modification of the heading State actors stakeholders

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 11 Donors' coordination Shift of this dimension to the Accountability and and alignment on Partnerships pillar, as two distinct dimensions national priorities (coordination and alignment) Integration of the Integration of the Updating of development stage definitions in decentralization decentralization order to focus on "decentralization" rather than dimension dimension "deconcentration" Management of Change in Modification of the heading change management Human resources Human resources No change management management Monitoring and Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation National planning National planning geared to geared to No change development results development results Capacity for Monitoring and monitoring and Modification of the heading evaluation capacity evaluation of public policies

Information system Information system and decision-support and decision-support No change tools tools

System for System for measuring user measuring user No change satisfaction satisfaction Administration Administration Readjustment of development stage definitions performance geared performance geared in order to focus on the internal performance of to development to development departments results results Harmonization of Harmonization of information requests information requests Modification of the heading by donors by TFPs Accountability and Accountability and Reinstatement of the standard heading Control Partnerships Independence of Independence of Justice and of the Justice and of the No change higher Audit higher Audit Institutions Institutions Parliament's role in Parliament's role in oversight of oversight of No change Government action Government action Media independence Media independence No change

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 12 Public access to Public access to No change results results

Coordination among A dimension initially under Leadership in the TFPs case of Mauritania - Here, focus on coordination

Alignment of A dimension initially under Leadership in the partners on national case of Mauritania - Here, focus on priorities harmonization and alignment Planning and Budgetary Process Reinstatement of the standard heading Budgeting Budget consistency Budget consistency with national with national No change priorities priorities Budget preparation Budget preparation based on objectives based on objectives No change and results and results Participation of non- Participation of non- governmental actors governmental actors No change in budget planning in budget planning and preparation and preparation

Intra-departmental Intra-departmental No change coordination coordination

Inter-sectoral Inter-sectoral No change coordination coordination Statistical Data Statistics Reinstatement of the standard heading Processing Statistics strategy Statistics strategy No change and plan and plan Data disaggregation Data disaggregation No change Added on the basis of lessons learned from the Extent of data Mauritania exercise

Data quality Data quality No change assessment assessment Modification of the heading and of Capacity for development-stage definitions in order to add conducting and Survey capability survey management (filing and dissemination) exploiting country- over and above the capacity for carrying out wide surveys surveys Analysis and Dimension added modeling capacity

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 13 3.2.3 Definition of Roles and Responsibilities

Focal Points

A focal point represents his/her Ministry within the CAP-Scan Team and in the final workshop.

Moreover, a focal point relays information between the CAP-Scan Team and Ministry stakeholders as a whole. He/she ensures the support necessary for the organization of the Ministry-level workshop and participates in it.

The above definition applies to the period of the CAP-Scan exercise itself (diagnosis, definition of priorities and formulation of the action plan). For the period of action plan implementation, the role of the focal point changes as redefined in Section 4 below ("Dissemination and Follow-Up")

Rapporteurs

Rapporteurs are responsible for writing up, as faithfully as possible, the discussions held during the workshops. At least two rapporteurs are required, one for entering material in the CAP-Scan Journal during the session and one for taking notes during the discussions.

Moreover, a rapporteur ensures early quality control during workshops, particularly by requesting clarification of any assertions that may seem unclear.

Quality Committee

The Quality Committee has the following responsibilities:

 Assisting in adapting the assessment matrix to Niger’s context  Reviewing and validating the outcomes of early Ministry-focused workshops or helping to reformulate the scope of analysis to include the Government as a whole  Doing quality-control spot checks on certain CAP-Scan products, on its own initiative or at the Team's request

The Quality Committee comprised the following members:

 Ide Hassane Adamou (EACG/MEF)  Mamoudou Adamou (IS/MH)  Janet Owens (WB)  Maria Bardolet (UNDP)

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 14  Boureima Gado (Consultant)

3.3 Workshop Methodology and Outcomes

The CAP-Scan inter-sectoral workshop was held on April 21-23, 2009 at the National School of Administration and Magistracy (ENAM), Niamey. The workshop was complemented with a validation meeting held at the Ministry of the Economy and Finance (MEF) on April 28, 2009.

This section summarizes the methods used for the major workshop activities and the respective outcomes.

3.3.1 Self-Assessment Overall self-assessment is basically a synthesis of sectoral self-assessments, including the identification of points of convergence and divergence between the assessments of individual Ministries. The discussions focused on divergences and were aimed at choosing an assessment for each dimension by consensus.

Discussion outcomes, in the form of a rationale for the score decided for each dimension, are available in the CAP-Scan Journal.4

The following chart summarizes outcomes by pillar:

4 The CAP-Scan Journal is presented in Annex E.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 15 Average per pillar

Leadership

Evaluation & Monitoring

Accountability & Partnerships avr-09

Planining & Budgeting

Statistical Capacity

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00

The following chart summarizes outcomes by dimension: .

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 16 Government of the Republic of Niger CAP-Scan Portrait-

1.1 Commitment

1.2 Clarity and articulation of development orientations

1.3 Participation of non-state actors

1.4 Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the Administration

Leadership 1.5 Integration of the decentralization dimension

1.6 Change in management

1.7 Human resources management

2.1 National planning geared to development results

2.2 Capacity for monitoring and evaluation of public policies

2.3 Information system and decision-support tools

2.4 System for measuring user satisfaction

Suivi et Evaluation 2.5 Administration performance geared to development results

2.6 Harmonization of information requests by TFPs

3.1 Independence of Justice and of the higher Audit Institutions

3.2 Parliament’s role in oversight of Government action

avr-09 3.3 Media independence

3.4 Public access to results

3.5 Coordination among TFPs

Redevabilité et partenariats 3.6 Alignment of partners on national priorities

4.1 Budget consistency with national priorities

4.2 Budget preparation based on objectives and results

4.3 Participation of non-governmental actors in budget planning and preparation

4.4 Intra-departmental coordination

4.5 Inter-sectoral coordination

Planification et budgétisation

5.1 Statistics strategy and plan

5.2 Data disaggregation

5.3 Extent of data

5.4 Data quality assessment

Capacité statistique 5.5 Capacity for conducting and exploiting country-wide surveys

5.6 Analysis and modeling capacity

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

A preliminary analysis of average outcomes by pillar leads to the following conclusions:

 Pillar averages range between 1.50 and 2.50, with an overall average slightly over 2. On the whole, these figures reflect MfDR capacities between the phases of experimentation and transition. At that stage, although still viewed as isolated efforts, capacity-building initiatives begin to be organized on a broader basis and to bring about the first changes.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 17 • Progress has mainly been achieved on two pillars, "Accountability and Partnerships" and "Statistical Data Processing". Regarding the first pillar, the score reflects the apparent effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms for monitoring Government action, namely, the judicial authorities, the Parliament and the media, whose independence is becoming a matter of course. Regarding the second pillar, the score seems to reflect the substantial efforts put forth with a view to building statistical data processing capacities—particularly through INS and a National Statistics Development Strategy (SNDS) —and a data situation which, without being ideal, provides an overview of results achieved by the main components of national programs.

In greater detail, average outcomes by dimension suggest the following conclusions:

The above observations on pillar averages apply also to the level of dimensions. Accordingly, scores are stronger on, for instance, the dimensions "Parliament's role in oversight of Government action" and "Media Independence" under the pillar "Accountability and Partnerships", and the dimension "Statistics strategy and plan" under the pillar "Statistical Data Processing."

 In addition to the two above pillars, the highest scores probably reflect the latest Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) review, which led to the formulation of ADPRS as a national frame of reference and a cornerstone of current policy. That review was highly participatory, probably as part of an evolution in favor of the participatory process rather than as an isolated event (the dimension "Participation of non-State actors" under the pillar "Leadership" scored 3.00). The review also led to a framework clearly articulating results and specifying indicators (the dimension "Clarity and articulation of development orientations" under the pillar "Leadership" scored 2.50) and stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluation (the dimension "National planning geared to development results" under the pillar "Monitoring and Evaluation" scored 3.00). However, this overall positive assessment should not divert attention from some weaknesses identified with regard to linkages between ADPRS and the sectoral frameworks, often as a result of poor timing with respect to review processes and of non- homogeneous time horizons.

• One weakness is identified with respect to the following dimensions, related to "human" or "cultural" factors affecting MfDR implementation, under the pillar "Leadership": "Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the Administration" (score: 1.25), "Change in management" (score: 2.00) and "Human resources management" (score: 1.00). Such factors are crucial to MfDR implementation and can tangibly thwart all progress achieved at the level of institutional processes and mechanisms. This weakness has already been identified as critical and is addressed through activities, which, however, are limited to awareness-raising and training, and are necessary but not sufficient. It is also taken

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 18 into account in the analyses related to civil service modernization programs (in particular, the Integrated Public Administration Modernization Program or PIMAP).

• Along the same lines, a second weakness is worth noting with respect to the following dimensions, related to the functioning of the Administration, under the pillar "Monitoring and Evaluation": "System for measuring user satisfaction" (score: 1.25) and "Administration performance geared to development results" (score: 1.00).

 Lastly, weaknesses are observed in relation to the pillar "Planning and Budgeting", particularly regarding the gap between results-based procedures versus resources- and activities-based practices in that area (the dimensions "Budget preparation based on objectives and results" and "Intra-departmental coordination" scored, respectively, 1.25 and 1.50). Along the same lines, weakness is observed in taking decentralization requirements into consideration in planning and, consequently, budgeting and ensuring budget transparency (the dimension "Integration of the decentralization dimension" under the pillar "Leadership" scored 1.50). However, these weakness, although widespread within the Administration, should not hide progress achieved in some sectors (health in particular), which have developed best practices that may serve as examples for all Government levels.

3.3.2 Determination of Priorities

Priority dimensions were identified through successive analytical evaluations on the basis of the following two criteria:

 Priority  Feasibility

In particular, the following method was used in the workshops:

 Application of criterion 1, "priority" (significance / urgency) o Key question: "Regardless of constraints (political considerations, human and financial resources and works in progress), what is the "ideal" sequence of MfDR capacity-building measures?" o Work in sub-groups and validation of two priority levels (1 and 2) by consensus

 Consideration of the assessment o Visualization of tabulated "Evaluation x Priority" values for priorities 1 and 2

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 19  Application of criterion 2, "difficulty" (resources available, resources to be mobilized / short-term and medium-term effects / technical, human and political complexity) o Discussion of priority 1 dimensions by the entire group of participants in view of three difficulty levels (low, medium and high)

 Determination of priority dimensions requiring an action plan o Discussion by the entire group of participants

After discussion, priority dimensions were defined with a view to immediate action focused on the weaknesses identified. The initial selection was presented to SGs in a meeting organized on the second day of the workshop in order to note their observations.

The following priority dimensions were specified:

 "Leadership" pillar

o Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the Administration o Integration of the decentralization dimension o Human resources management

 "Monitoring and Evaluation" pillar

o System for measuring user satisfaction o Administration performance geared to development results

 "Planning and Budgeting" pillar

o Budget preparation based on objectives and results

Contrary to an initial assessment, the dimension "Participation of non- governmental actors in budget planning and preparation" was ultimately not included in the priority dimensions in view of complexity considerations voiced in the meeting with the SGs.

The outcome of the priority setting process is presented in the following diagram, which shows the self-assessment results, the two priority levels comprising all CAP-Scan dimensions, and the three levels of difficulty:

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 20 Self-assessment results regarding the priority of dimensions 1 1.1 Commitment y t i 1.6 Change in r o

i management r

P 2.6 Harmonization of information requests by TFPs 3.4 Public access to results Coordination among TFPs 1.7 Human 1.4 Responsibility 4.5 Inter-sectoral resources and delegation at coordination management the level of senior officials of the Administration 2.5 2.4 System for 5.4 Data quality 1.2 Clarity and Administration measuring user assessment articulation of performance satisfaction development geared to orientations development results 4.3 Participation 4.2 Budget 1.5 Integration of 5.6 Capacity for 4.1 Budget 2.2 Capacity for 3.6 Alignment of of non- preparation the decentralization analysis and consistency monitoring and partners on governmental based on dimension modeling with national evaluation of national priorities actors in budget objectives and priorities public policies planning and results preparation 2 1.3 Participation of y t

i non-State actors r o

i 2.3 Information 3.2 Parliament's 2.1 National r

P system and role in oversight of planning geared to decision-support Government development tools action results 4.5 Inter-sectoral 3.1 Independence 5.5 Capacity 5.3 Extent of 3.3 Media 5.2 Data 5.1 coordination of Justice and of for conducting data independence disaggregation Statistics the higher Audit and exploiting strategy Institutions country-wide and plan surveys 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 Self-assessment results : Difficulty Low Medium High

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 21 3.3.3 Preparation of the Action Plan

An action plan was drawn up for building the capacities related to the six priority dimensions identified. It was formulated during the third day of the final workshop and finalized in a meeting held by the CAP-Scan Team on April 28, 2009.

In that meeting, attention was drawn inter alia to the need for a clear specification of the resources necessary for the implementation of the action plan. The budgets for the current year are given, in view of the initiatives already launched (some of which were referred to in the CAP-Scan process). Accordingly, the above need should be specifically addressed in future self-assessment exercises. In fact, the CAP-Scan action plan may be regarded as a "roadmap" to priority capacity-building objectives rather than as an actual project to be added to existing initiatives.

The priority action plan is presented in the following table, which shows only the priority dimensions:

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 22 CAP-Scan Action Plan (first version) Dimensions/ Indicator/ Reference Target situation Funding Responsible Priority Comment/ Link with existing activity Products Follow-up situation Obtained Mobilizable Source executive 1. Leadership Responsibility and CAP-Scan 1.25 2 1 delegation at the level of senior officials of the Administration Establishing ToR- % of 0 or ? 25% Prime Minister based results Ministries (Ministry of (PM) (Cabinet) frameworks for with a Health to be Ministries results- verified) based action plan Integration of the CAP-Scan 1.5 2 1 decentralization dimension Adapting the guide End of 2009 Ministry of Guide review in progress but not including the for preparing Territorial and results-based approach. Council Community Development Plans Development (PDCs) to the (MAT/DC), results-based General approach Directorate for Community Development (DG DC) Setting up a local Number of 2 (Ministries 7 (sectors of SDR State planning system Ministries of Health health, Secretary (SE- based on the having set and education and SDR) experience of up such a Education) Rural some Ministries system Development (Health and Strategy (SDR)) Education Ministries) Human resources CAP-Scan 1 2 1 management Incorporating Number of 0 Modules linked ENAM / MEF MfDR into the sections to MfDR pillars support ENAM curriculum having in general adapted Administration the training and public

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 23 finance Developing a 0 End of 2009 MEF - DGEPD training module in training establishments (ENAM and University) Build on health 1st semester, Ministry of PIMAP 2 addresses the issue of individual sector experience 2010 Public Health performance assessment. A link to current best regarding (MSP) practices should be established. individual agent assessment (profile description and evaluation record) Training human End of 2009 / all MFP/T resources HRDs directorates (HRDs) on individual performance management 2. Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAP-Scan 1.25 2 1 measuring user satisfaction Proposing a 1st semester, HCME - MFP/T Objective already included in ADPRS. comprehensive 2010 mechanism for measuring Administration service users' satisfaction Administration CAP-Scan 1 2 1 performance geared to development results Formulating % of 0 25% PM - CAPED / Ministry strategic Ministries Ministries plans for individual units Formulating and % of 25% (same PM - CAPED /

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 24 implementing Ministries bodies as above) Ministries monitoring plans based on the strategic plans Conducting Number of MH 7 (sectors of PM - Cabinet Resources to be confirmed with SE-SDR. organization audits Ministries health, in some education and departments (to Rural be confirmed) Development Strategy (SDR)) 3. Accountability and Partnerships 4. Planning and Budgeting Budget CAP-Scan 1.25 1 preparation based on objectives and results Organize a 1st semester, MEF discussion of the 2010 Medium Term Budget Framework (MDBF) with the Ministries before finalization Adapting the 1st semester, MTEF Team existing action 2010 plans and Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Providing SGs with End of 2009 MTEF Team training and information on results-based budgeting 5. Statistical Data Processing

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 25 4 Dissemination and follow-up

4.1 Communication Strategy

The following seven audiences should be taken into consideration with regard to communication activities:

 Ministries and bodies having participated in the exercise  Other Ministries  The Parliament  NGOs and associations active in the area of development  Unions  TFPs  Decentralized units

The following table summarizes the communication strategy reviewed with the CAP-Scan Team:

Target audience Objectives Method and means Participant Ministries  Presentation of Workshop organized by and bodies outcomes DGEPD in the Ministry and  Ownership of attended by the SG and the conclusions and action participants in the initial plan by SGs and other workshop. responsible officers  Definition of responsibilities for activities involving the Ministry / body All Ministries  Information on the Conference of SGs. 2009 CAP-Scan exercise  Presentation of outcomes  Discussion on communication at the level of Ministers  Discussion on participation in the next exercise Parliament  Information on the First meeting with the 2009 CAP-Scan exercise General Secretariat of the  Presentation of Parliament in order to

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 26 outcomes (particularly define the best the diagnosis) communication method for  Discussion on the Parliament as a whole. participation in the next exercise Development NGOs and  Information on the Presentation workshops for associations 2009 CAP-Scan exercise NGOs, associations and  Presentation of representative outcomes (particularly organizations already the diagnosis) targeted in the framework of results-based management (RBM) training activities. Unions  Information on the Presentation workshop for 2009 CAP-Scan exercise trade union groups.  Presentation of NB: Joint organization with outcomes other structures concerned  Discussion on (including MFP/T, PIMAP activities related to the and HCME) to be studied. dimension "Human resources management" TFPs  Information on the Presentation to the OECD- 2009 CAP-Scan exercise CAD National Committee.  Presentation of outcomes  Mobilization on the priority action plan with a view to alignment

Decentralized units  Information on the Use of existing protocols 2009 CAP-Scan exercise and mechanisms (for  Presentation of instance, inclusion of a outcomes MfDR module in training  (particularly the activities to be carried out diagnosis) in the framework of the Community Action Program [CAP]). In the first year, lower priority than communication at national level.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 27 4.2 Monitoring Mechanism

The launching of a cycle of recurring Mired capacity-building activities is a major CAP-Scan objective. Accordingly, mainstreaming the CAP-Scan process in the Administration is crucial. Moreover, as in any project for change, it is important to preserve the overall consistency of capacity-building initiatives and to ensure that the CAP-Scan action plan is coordinated with the following initiatives of that type:

 Capacity-building program for MEF (partners: WM and European Union [EU])  Comprehensive capacity-building program (whose design is in progress under MEF supervision)  Other support initiatives promoted by TFPs (inter alia, UNDP, UNICEF and ADB).

The following institutionalization objectives have been set:

 Pooling efforts and ensuring comprehensive transparency over Mired capacity- building initiatives as a whole, regardless of the source of funding;  Ensuring concerted inter-sectoral follow-up on the CAP-Scan action plan and, generally, on the annual Mired capacity-building work plan.

The mechanism to be set up in that connection should be based on existing structures, as far as possible.

Based on these objectives and constraints, it is proposed that the institutionalization mechanism should mainly include the following bodies and responsibilities:

 Conference of SGs: Monitoring of implementation within the Administration (semester meetings)  Technical Committee (CAP-Scan Team): Quarterly progress monitoring  DGEPD: Follow-up coordination and preparation of half-yearly progress reports  Department of Studies and Programming (DEP): Follow-up of activities at ministerial level

Actually, according to its mandate, DEP is the institutional unit responsible for follow-up on activities within the various Ministries. Specific monitoring of CAP-Scan priority activities is incumbent upon the CAP-Scan focal point within DEP. In the particular case of MFP/T, the designation of that focal point requires further discussion because other bodies, in addition to DEP, are involved in monitoring measures for the modernization of the Administration.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 28 It is proposed that the action plan be implemented in one-year cycles, and reviewed in conjunction with ADPRS reviews in order to ensure reciprocal sharing of information:

4.3 Information Sharing for Future CAP-Scan Exercises

With regard to the next CAP-Scan exercise, the main sources of information to be shared on organization methods are the following two:  African Community of MfDR Practitioners (AfCoP)5  The MfDR Secretariat website (www.mfdr.org)

5 http://www.cop-mfdr-africa-fr.org

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 29 5 Subsequent Steps

The following table shows the agreed schedule of activities planned as a follow- up to the workshop along three lines of action:

 Action plan finalization in light of observations formulated by SGs and after addition of any details

 Communication for dissemination within the Government

 Implementation of the institutionalization plan

The very next step is the organization of meetings with Ministry SGs having participated in the exercise with a view to the validation of the priority action plan.

Operational implementation of the CAP-Scan Niger Time limit Who? AP MAY JUNE action plan RIL 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 Product 1: Finalization of the CAP-Scan action plan May 29 Team meeting: Clarification and validation of the April 28 Team initial action plan Action plan finalization (1- to 2-day workshop): June 5 Team Incorporation of feedback from SGs and risks Preparation of presentation to meeting of SGs for validation Preparation of presentation to meeting of the June 12 DGEPD/ Assistance Coordination Committee EACG Product 2: Dissemination of the approach within June 19 the Government Preparation of communication and follow-up plan April 30 BG/SH* Preparation of presentation tools April 30 BG/SH Final report dissemination May 7 BG/SH Meetings with SGs of participant Ministries May 22 DGEPD Meetings with the Assistance Coordination ? DGEPD Committee Meeting with all SGs ? DGEPD Product 3: Definition of the CAP-Scan June 19 institutionalization mechanism and drafting of ToR Discussion on the initial proposal (Team meeting) April 28 BG/SH Incorporation of comments, and finalization (ToR?) BG/ MEF Validation with the various stakeholders (in a meeting with SGs?) * BG = Boureima Gado, SH = Samer Hachem

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 30 6 Evaluation of the CAP-Scan mission

The following chart summarizes the CAP-Scan mission assessments by the workshop participants (22 team members replied):

Evaluation (scale 1 to 5)

1 Do you consider the CAP-Scan approach useful in relation to the current MfDR capacity building efforts ? 2 Do you consider the CAP-Scan self-assessment as an appropriate method for measuring the progress achieved by the Government in building MfDR capacities? 3 Do the priorities and the action plan formulated as part of the exercise reflect your conception of the short-term measures necessary for MfDR capacity-building?

4 How do you rate the facilitator's ability to communicate clearly?

5 How do you rate the facilitator's knowledge in the area of MfDR?

6 How do you rate the facilitator's ability and techniques as a facilitator and moderator? 7 Do the objectives of the MfDR approach seem to you clearer after the CAP-Scan exercise? 8 Do you think that you can repeat the exercise without help from an external facilitator? 9 Do you think that the MfDR approach will contribute to MfDR capacity-building?

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

Over and above the—on the whole—quite positive assessment of the CAP-Scan exercise (overall average: 4.25 on a scale of 5), the following observations are in order.

 With regard to two slightly lower marks:

o The mark given in relation to the action plan probably confirms a lesson learned from the previous exercise, namely, that definition of priorities and formulation of an action plan need strengthening and additional time. o The mark given in relation to the ability to repeat the exercise without external assistance indicates that (although the overall assessment is largely positive on this point) ownership is a delicate issue. This is borne out in various comments to the effect that more time is required for the exercise as a whole. This is a lesson that will be taken into account in improving the methodology.

 With regard to the two highest marks, which seem to confirm the value of the exercise with respect to the methodology and the analytical matrix:

o The self-assessment is largely considered as an appropriate method for measuring the progress achieved by the Government in building MfDR capacities. o The exercise is believed to have clarified the objectives of the MfDR approach. The clarification was probably achieved through the breakdown of the analysis into pillars and dimensions.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 31 A sample of comments by the participants is presented below:

• On diagnosis and analysis: "Diagnostic analysis should be more thorough with a view to proposing more effective strategies." "The formulation of the elements of the matrix should be revised."

• On the methodology for priority definition and action plan formulation: "The priority-setting procedure should be revised (the score method should be applied)." "A methodology for drawing up the action plan is necessary."

• On ownership and overall duration: "Discussions should be better organized in order to make better use of time and rationalize workshop duration." "More time should be provided for the sectoral and comprehensive workshops. In some cases, we are obliged to leave important discussions unfinished." "The representatives of the Administration had not been briefed well enough to understand the process."

• On subsequent action: "Comparison with similar countries would be a useful approach, particularly in view of community integration objectives." "A Government workshop on CAP-Scan should be held." On the need for more active Government participation (comments made in the meeting with the SGs): "There is a need for more extensive communication, for greater commitment on the part of decision-makers and for a more detailed presentation of diagnostic procedures in order to raise the awareness of civil servants." "A mechanism should be devised to ensure more effective participation by political decision-makers." "A communication plan on RBM should be implemented (promoting best practices and explaining the diagnosis)."

Although the commentary has been largely encouraging on the whole and includes some particularly positive remarks, the above sampled observations nuance the overall assessment by highlighting the following elements:

• Methodology and procedures for identifying priorities and formulating the action plan

• The time constraint

• Institutionalization, and involvement of decision-makers from the outset.

The above elements will be taken into consideration in drawing up, in a separate document, an account of lessons learned from the two pilot implementations.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 32 7 Annexes

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 33 7.1 The CAP-Scan Matrix

Overview of pillars, dimensions and key questions 1. Leadership 2. Monitoring and Evaluation 3. Accountability and 4. Planning and Budgeting 5. Statistical Data Processing Partnerships Commitment 1.1. What is the National 2.1 Are public Independence 3.1 To what Budget 4.1 Are the Statistics 5.1 What is the decision- planning policies subject of Justice and extent do the consistency instruments of strategy and level of makers' level of geared to to a regular and of the higher control with national planning plan implementation commitment to development sustained Audit institutions priorities (ADPRS) and of the national a management results monitoring and Institutions (inter alia, the budgeting strategy for the for development evaluation Court of (MTEF and development of results process that Auditors) and LdF) statistics? approach? permits the judiciary consistently adjustments in function articulated? performance independently objectives? of the executive branch? Clarity and 1.2 To what Capacity for 2.2 To what Parliament's 3.2 Up to what Budget 4.2 Is budget Data 5.2 What is the articulation of extent does monitoring extent does the role in level does the preparation allocation based disaggregation Government’s development national and evaluation Administration oversight of Parliament fulfill based on on each capacity in orientations planning clearly of public possess Government its role of objectives and department's terms of data present the policies adequate action exercising results results and disaggregation? development capabilities for oversight of objectives, objectives and ensuring Government taking into form the frame monitoring and action, account the of reference for evaluation of particularly as assessment of Government public policies? regards past results? action? economic policies and budget allocations? Participation of 1.3 To what Information 2.3 To what Media 3.3 To what Participation 4.3 To what Extent of data 5.3 Is the scope non-State extent do civil system and extent does the independence degree are the of non- extent do non- of available actors society decision- Administration (public and governmental governmental statistical data organizations support tools have adequate private) media, actors in actors broad enough to and the private tools, IT in as a whole, able budget participate in measure all sector particular, to to play planning and the budget indicators participate by ensure effectively their preparation allocation related to the side of the monitoring and role in criticizing process and in national Government as evaluation of the authorities? results priorities? partners in public policies assessment? achieving and use of development factual data in results? decision- making?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 34 Responsibility 1.4 Do the System for 2.4 Has the Public access 3.4 What is the Intra- 4.4 Does the Data quality 5.4 What are the and delegation management measuring administration to results assessment of departmental preparation of assessment means used by at the level of practices of user put to use the level of coordination the budget the senior officials senior officials satisfaction means for public within a Administration to of the of the measuring dissemination of department improve the Administration Administration service quality information by reasonably quality of encourage the in order to the correspond to statistical data? development, assess user Government? objectives at the involvement satisfaction? various levels? and motivation of civil servants? Integration of 1.5 To what Administration 2.5 To what Coordination 3.5 To what Inter-sectoral 4.5 To what Capacity for 5.5 Does the the extent do the performance degree is among TFPs extent do coordination extent does conducting Administration decentralizatio Administration geared to factual Administration coordination on and exploiting have the n dimension and the regional development information from mechanisms the basis of country-wide capability to authorities results monitoring and ensure effective inter-sectoral surveys carry out operate evaluation used coordination objectives play country-wide coherently with to improve the among TFP a role in budget surveys and to a view to Administration activities? preparation? file and achieving for better disseminate the development development findings? results? results? Change in 1.6 To what Harmonization 2.6 What is the Alignment of 3.6 To what Capacity for 5.6 Does the management extent has the of information level of partners on extent do the analysis and Administration Government requests by harmonization national Administration's modeling have the provided itself TFPs among TFPs on priorities good MfDR capability to with the means national practices analyze necessary for reporting ensure the statistical data addressing procedures and external for forecasting capacity- on the partners' purposes? building as a organization of alignment on genuine project joint missions national for in-depth and studies? priorities? change in the Administration and its practices? Human 1.7 To what resources extent does management RBM affect management practices at the individual level?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 35 7.2 Definition of Capacity-Building Stages

Capacity-Building Stages Awareness Experimentation Transition Sustainable Implementation Inadequate management capacities The Government begins to commit to The Government has committed MfDR is mainstreamed into are recognized as an obstacle to shifting to good management practices itself to MfDR and embarks on Administration practices as a cross- achieving development results. The and explores various approaches. In transition from the previous to the cutting approach. The main Administration is aware of, but not this stage, office holders gather ideas new methods. Individuals begin to administrative processes clearly committed to, MfDR. Office from various sources and try out new adopt the new practices, (formulation of national strategies holders acknowledge the need to do methods. Experimentation may take perceiving the old methods as and preparation of the budget) better and wish to operate in the form of pilot projects and may ineffectual in handling day-to-day conform to the new practices. accordance with the principles of involve studies and working groups. problems. This stage may be Indicators are used to monitor good management. This stage often One problem at this stage is lack of characterized by difficult decisions. Government action and regular involves a sense of frustration and homogeneity, and various tools are For instance, conversion to a reviews lead to realignment on dissatisfaction with Administration chosen on the basis of personal results-oriented framework implies national priorities. Civil servants, performance. Awareness of preference. Moreover, launching dropping the earlier indicators and implicated in the change, are appropriate management practices multiple initiatives at the same time measuring methods. Determining trained and prepared to own the and a sense of urgency for change may result in pursuing none priorities and managing change at new management tools, which are encourage the adoption of different thoroughly. Many office holders the human level are further regularly reviewed in the light of methods and lead to the next stage. acknowledge that MfDR is beneficial, significant issues. The spread of experience. Resource allocations provided that the approach is fully the new approach on a large scale ensure the sustainability of the pursued. Their number and resolve in the Administration leads to the new methods, whose effect on the lead to the next stage. next stage. services provided by the Government becomes evident.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 36 7.3 Summary of Meetings and Activities

Ministry / Institution Activity Date / Time Team Team meeting March 10 MAT/DC Presentation to the SG March 11 MDA Presentation to the SG March 11 ME/LCD Presentation to the SG March 11 MSP Presentation to the SG March 11 MEF Presentation to the SG March 13 Team Meeting with focal points of Ministries and March 13 SDR PS/ADPRS Presentation to the Coordinator March 13 Team Team meeting March 13 MH Presentation to the SG March 16, 9 am European Commission Presentation, B. Mandouze March 16, 10 am MSP Workshop March 17 MDA Workshop March 18 Team Meeting with Quality Committee March 18 INS Workshop March 19 UNDP Strategy Unit Presentation March 19 MAT/DC Workshop March 24 MEN Workshop March 25 MFP/T Workshop March 31 MEQ Workshop April 2 ME/LCD Workshop April 8 ME/IA Workshop April 9 PS/PRS Workshop April 10

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 37 MEF Workshop April 17 MDA Workshop (complement) April 20 Team Final workshop April 21, 22, 23 Meetings of SGs Presentation of results April 22 Team Team meeting April 28

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 38 7.4 List of CAP-Scan Participants

The following table lists the members of the CAP-Scan team, including the focal points in the various Ministries, and the participants in the various ministerial workshops.

Name CAP-Scan responsibilities Organization E-mail Tel. Ministry of the Economy and Finance (MEF) Yayé Seydou Coordinator, MEF focal DGEPD/MEF [email protected] 96 97 36 81 point Abdou Soumana SG/MEF 20 72 20 37 Yakoubou M. Sani CCD/MEF [email protected] 96 96 66 13 Sitti Fidel Anani Rapporteur DGEPD/MEF [email protected] 96 26 73 07 Ali Galadima Chittou Rapporteur DGEPD/MEF [email protected] 96 58 63 78 Seyni Soumana Deputy coordinator DGEPD/MEF [email protected] 20 72 38 38 Quality Committee member Ousseini Nana Aichatou (Ms) DGEPD/MEF 20 72 38 38 Morou Moussa DRFM/MEF [email protected] 20 73 29 43 Ide Hassane Adamou Quality Committee EACG/MEF [email protected] 20 72 32 39 member Chaibou Daouda DGCMP/MEF [email protected] 96 40 68 05 Diallo Zeinabou CCE/DGEPD/MEF 96 55 42 64 Daouda Adamou CCRI 93 92 65 83 Dogari Bassirou DGE/MEF 20 72 41 38 Ibrahim Habiboulaye DGI/DCEI/MEF [email protected] 96 42 64 37 Gati Seybou DGIF/MEF 96 87 30 15 Dankarami Mamadou DGPS/MEF 96 88 45 31 Ousseini Nana Aichatou (Ms) DARPC/DGEPD/MEF [email protected] 96 29 10 80 Sani Mariama (Ms) DSEPD/DGEPD/MEF [email protected] Ada Assoumane DGCF/MEF 96 87 04 34

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 39 Maman Aminou Idi DSEPD/DGEPD/MEF 96 40 32 81 Abdou Souley CCD/MEF 91 92 49 40 Faladou Fatimata (Ms) DGPS/MEF [email protected] Sidibé Saidou Cabinet/MEF Manou Abdou DGF/MEF Ibrahim Abdoulaye DGI/DES/MEF [email protected] 20 72 60 19 Maazou Illiassou DGF/DRM/MEF [email protected] Ministry of Public Health (MSP) Adamou Amadou MSP focal point DSE/DEP/MSP [email protected] 96 88 23 10 Dr. Moussa Fatimata (Ms) SG/MSP [email protected] Boureima Hamidou DEP/MSP 96 29 57 77 Aissata Maiga (Ms) DCS/DEP/MSP [email protected] 96 98 18 97 Abou Mahamane DERP/DEP/MSP [email protected] Dr Yamba Ibrahima DSE/DEP/MSP [email protected] 96 58 20 75 Paul Haoua (Ms) DSE/DEP/MSP [email protected] Laouan Adiza (Ms) DSE/DEP/MSP [email protected] 96 96 05 91 Ibrahim Ouba PNLP/MSP [email protected] Abdou Sayo Farmo DRFM/MSP [email protected] 96 59 84 01 Ibrahim Amy (Ms) ULSS/MSP [email protected] 94 32 35 25 Dr. Issoufou Aboubacar DLMIE/MSP [email protected] Haoua Ibrahim (Ms) DN/MSP [email protected] 96 46 89 31 90 31 32 97 Sani Zané DAP/DRH/MSP 90 40 74 61 Maman Elh Maty DPHL/MSP [email protected] Adakal Aboubacar DSS/RE/MSP [email protected] Hubert Balique CT/SG/MSP [email protected] 96 47 91 56 Oumanou Amadou DRFM/MSP [email protected] 96 49 43 71 Ministry of Agricultural Development (MDA) Adamou Daguioua MDA focal point DEP/MDA [email protected] 20 73 36 34 Abdou Chaibou SG/MDA [email protected]

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 40 Nouhou Lamine DEP/MDA [email protected] Harouna Ibrahima DS/MDA [email protected] 20 75 27 72 Ousmane Arboncana DS/MDA [email protected] Moussa Adamou DRFM/MDA 96 97 44 63 Aboubacar Mamadou Kourna DGA/MDA [email protected] 96 28 70 70 20 37 23 35 Bachir Ousseini DGGR/MDA [email protected] 20 73 21 48 National Institute of Statistics (INS) Ibrahim Soumaila INS focal point DCDS/INS [email protected] 20 20 31 28 [email protected] Gapto Mai Moussa SDS/INS [email protected] 96 52 74 61 Maman Laouali Ado Conseiller SG/INS [email protected] 96 97 26 58 Omar Haoua (Ms) CFP/INS [email protected] 96 98 18 04 Mahamadou Chekarao SEE/INS [email protected] Abdoullahi Beidou DG/INS [email protected] Habi Oumarou DER/INS [email protected] Touré Abdoulaye Communication/INS [email protected] Ministry of Education (MEN) Adam Amadou MEN focal point DEP/MEN [email protected] 20 20 30 22 Kimba Amadou SG [email protected] Diori Hamani Souley DRFM/MEN [email protected] Diafara Djibo DGAEMF/MEN [email protected] Boureima Djibo Yacouba DEP/MEN [email protected] Moussa Djibo DSI/MEN [email protected] Assogba Moustapha DCDA/MEN [email protected] Moumouni Djibrilla DGEB/MEN [email protected] Elhadji Kollo Moustapha DRH/MEN [email protected] 96 25 70 11 Halilou a. Abdoulaye DLC/MEN [email protected] 96 97 43 92 Ministry of Regional Planning and Community Development (MAT/DC) Issa Bawa MAT/DC focal point DGP/MATDC [email protected] 96 97 5707 Elhadj Ibrahim Adamou SG/MATDC [email protected]

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 41 Liman Abari Checou Sanoussi DDRL/MATDC [email protected] 96 97 66 18 Fatouma Belko (Ms) DGAT/MATDC [email protected] 96 50 45 40 Mahaman Mansour Sani DGAT/MATDC [email protected] 96 11 25 23 Ibrahim Combasset DSEAD/MATDC [email protected] 96 88 53 24 Chekaraou Idi DS/MATDC [email protected] 96 98 91 88 Tankoano Diassibo DADR/DGAT/MATDC [email protected] 96 97 38 22 Boureima Alhassane PSPR/MATDC [email protected] 96 98 64 87 Ibrahim Binta (Ms) DASE/MATDC [email protected] 96 97 30 79 Bagna Soumaila (Ms) DEP/MATDC [email protected] 96 29 16 83 Idi Dilli Sani DPCM/DRFM/MATDC 96 28 71 85 Garro Gado DL/MATDC 96 53 95 39 Issifou Bissala DONGAD/MATDC [email protected] 90 42 86 32 Sidibe Mahaman DCD/MATDC 20 72 32 96 Amina Bachard (Ms) DCD/MATDC [email protected] 96 59 24 66 Ministry of Civil Service and Labor (MFP/T) Djibeye Abdoulaye MFP/T focal point DMSP/MFPT [email protected] 96 97 99 27 Oumarou Amadou SG/MFPT 96 59 80 36 Bagourme Boubacar DEP/MFPT Abdourhamane Harouna DPE/MFPT [email protected] Bagourmé Oumarou DEP/MFPT [email protected] 90 35 15 72 Adam Zakari DL/MFPT 96 96 52 22 20732242 p105 Saidou Rabi Roumar (Ms) DRH/MFPT 93 80 52 37 20732943 p130 Sanoussi Fourera (Ms) DGC/MFPT 96 44 73 74 Hamani Oumarou DAID/RP 96 97 05 73 Ministry of Public Works (MEQ) Sidi Zakari MEQ focal point DEP/MEQ 96 47 25 10 Koabo Idi SG/MEQ [email protected] Aminou Amani DEP/MEQ Abdourahmane Tari Bako DEP/MEQ [email protected]

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 42 Amadou Diori CT/MEQ Souleymane Yacouba DRFM/MEQ [email protected] 96 97 21 62 Laouali Dodo DTN/DGTP/MEQ 96 55 44 44 Amadou Bassirou DS/MEQ [email protected] 96 28 66 04 Kadri Hassoumi IS/MEQ 90 45 55 31 Abani Zeinaba (Ms) IGS/MEQ 93 93 36 04 Sani Abdoulaye DL/MEQ 97 02 72 73 Mafaki Mahamadou DCT/DGRR/MEQ 96 66 71 33 Djibo Maidawa DE/DGRR/MEQ 96 88 02 47 Boureima Aminata Hassane DRH/MEQ 96 72 67 52 (Ms) Ministry of the Environment and Desertification Control (ME/LCD) Garba Hamissou ME/LCD focal point DEP/MELD [email protected] 20 73 40 69 Mamadou Mamane SG/MELCD [email protected] Ousmane Hatta Studies [email protected] 20 73 40 69 Division/DEP/MELCD 96895747 Maisharou Abdou Deputy Coordinator, ROSELT [email protected] 96 97 41 82 Boubacar Zeinabou (Ms) DPF/DRH/MELCD [email protected] 96 88 81 57 Kimba Hassane Director, BEEEU [email protected] 96 96 93 55 Assoumane Garba Chief, Forest Planning [email protected] 96 09 72 99 Division Boukar Yagana (Ms) Program Administrator [email protected] 96 55 88 35 Aboubakar Illiassou DRTR/LCE/MELCD [email protected] 96 89 57 42 Moustapha Ibrahim DPNE/MELCD [email protected] 96 27 20 75 Abdoulaye Ali Mahamadou DFC/DGE/EF [email protected] 90 31 85 16 Amadou Oumani Abdoulaye DECT/MELCD [email protected] 96 87 36 88 Ministry of Livestock Breeding and Industries (ME/IA) Souley Daouda ME/IA focal point DEP/MEIA [email protected] 20 73 71 00 96 87 72 69 Dr. Baare Amadou SG/MEIA [email protected] 96963778/9393378 Naroua Ousmane Magagi DEP/MEIA [email protected] 96 88 45 54

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 43 Morou Mounkaila DSA/MEIA [email protected] 96 84 67 44 Moumouni Ousseini DS/MEIA [email protected] 96 42 42 14 Chevu Mamadou CAB/MEIA [email protected] 96 87 97 51 Salihou Boulkassim DL/MEIA 96 74 53 34 Yayé Fatouma Habi (Ms) DRH/MEIA Arimi Mamadou SE/SHR/MEIA [email protected] Ministry of Water Supply (MH) Mamoudou Adamou MH focal point IS/MH [email protected] 96 88 36 86 Quality Committee member Issoufou Issaka SG/MH [email protected] Rouscoua Boubacar DEP/MH [email protected] 96 89 81 26 Poverty Reduction Strategy Permanent Secretariat (PS/PRS) Aminata Takoubakaye (Ms) PS/PRS focal point Resp SE/PS/PRS [email protected] 20 72 21 32 Najim Mohamed Coordinator, PS/PRS 20 72 21 52 Ali Doungou Boubacar Rural Sector Administrator, [email protected] 20 72 20 36 PS/PRS Chegari Abderahmane Administrator, PS/PRS [email protected] 96 98 34 74 Abdoulaye Yayé PS/PRS Member [email protected] 20 72 21 52 Tawaye Aboubacar Officer responsible for [email protected] institutional issues Other Ministries represented at the meeting of SGs on April 22, 2009 Oumarou Massalabi SG/MME [email protected] Mahaman Zaky SG/MCRIR 20725951/52 Colonel Yayé Garba SG/MDN [email protected] Karimou Gazibo SG/ENAM [email protected] 96408283 Ali Salifou Hadiza (Ms) SGpi /MIA/NE [email protected] 96595131 Ibrahima Halidou SG/MFRS 20 73 94 42 Guéro Mahamadou SG/MJS 20 72 20 74 Idi Serki Kalilou SG/MPJE/REP 20 73 73 51 Maiga Younoussa Tondy SG/MESSR/T 96 97 67 04

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 44 Thiari Falmata IGS 96 40 58 22 Other State bodies invited to the workshops: Development Analysis and Forecasting Unit (CAPED) and High Commission for State Modernization (HCME) Aoudi Diallo CAPED [email protected] Sangaré Alkasserim Saadatou CAPED 96 59 63 75 20 75 55 26 Mahamoud Elgou SG/HCME [email protected] Attaher K Ibrahim HCME/DDA [email protected] 20 20 34 51 Bawa Gaoh Ousmane HCME [email protected] Partners Janet Owens Quality Committee World Bank [email protected] 96 82 79 71 member Moussa Haladou CIDA [email protected] 20 75 30 42/43 Maria Bardolet Quality Committee UNDP [email protected] 97 00 14 56 member Consultants Boureima Gado Consultant - [email protected] Samer Hachem Consultant - [email protected] 97 49 90 55

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 45 7.5 CAP-Scan Journal

Pillar Dimension Question Score Argumentation  The Government has made RBM a managerial principle which is part of various strategies, such as ADPRS, SDR, PDS and PDDE, and of major programs, such as PEMFAR 2 and PIMAP.  PRS has been adopted by the Cabinet.  Terms of reference (ToR) make reference to RBM. 1.1. What is the  RBM training programs have been organized. decision-  Public financial authorities engage in performance-based operation. makers' level of  The Civil Service Act and Regulations make reference to RBM. commitment to 1.1 1. Leadership a management 2.00 Commitment  RBM has not been specifically introduced by an official act. for  There is no monitoring and evaluation of ToR. development results Conclusion: Although RBM is regularly referred to in national strategies and even approach? some laws, no specific act or decision has been issued to express official commitment to RBM in all areas concerned, as has been the case in other countries (for instance, Canada).

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 46  Objectives, impacts and results are clearly articulated in the ADPRS.  ADPRS indicators are measurable (selection criterion).  Responsibility is broadly shared as a result of the participatory process.  Not all sector frameworks are fully consistent with ADPRS. A study in view of alignment is in progress.  The timing of the review procedures of the various program frameworks is not concerted. This is one of the causes of inconsistency between frameworks. For instance, some sector frameworks are older than the ADPRS. As a result, cross- 1.2 To what cutting themes, such as decentralization or gender, are in certain cases insufficiently extent does taken into account in some sectoral strategies. national  Result chains can be improved and not all indicators may be measured. planning clearly 1.2 Clarity and  Although the major national priorities are explicit, the priorities of ADPRS present the articulation of components as a whole can be made clearer. development 2.50 development objectives and orientations Conclusion: The considerable effort put forth in relation to the ADPRS is recognizable form the frame at the clarity of results frameworks and proposed measurable indicators. However, of reference for lack of coordination in the timing of the various program frameworks is currently Government causing inconsistencies. Moreover, except for major national priorities, such as health action? or education, the definition of priorities for the various components can be improved. Lastly, as part of the review of certain sectoral strategies, efforts should be made to clarify the results framework and indicators concerned. Transition is in progress.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 47  The ADPRS has been formulated through a participatory process (civil society organizations SCOs were represented in all theme groups).  All stakeholders (civil society, the private sector and State bodies) cooperate in 1.3 To what order to attain the MDGs and interact through frameworks for concerted action (for extent do civil instance, a joint committee comprising the State, NGOs and TFPs since 1996-1997, society CCOAD, ROSEN). organizations  Civil society capacity-building activities are in progress (for instance, RECA). and the private  Participation is not yet considered as standard procedure for the formulation of 1.3 sector public policies. Participation of participate by 3.00  The effectiveness of participation is limited by the degree of availability of information non-State the side of the provided by the Administration and by civil society capacity (in terms of skills and actors Government as resources), which varies from sector to sector partners in achieving Conclusion: The participatory process is currently an accepted method, encouraged in development the country. results? ln certain sectors, however, full and effective participation is curbed by factors related to civil society capacity and to support from the Administration in terms of information. Transition has been completed.

 Senior officials are aware of the need for a culture of delegation of authority (for 1.4 Do the instance, a decree on the assignment and delegation of responsibilities was issued in management 1987). practices of 1.4  Initiatives aimed at delegation remain limited in scope (for instance, authority has senior officials Responsibility been delegated by Ministers to Secretaries General for signing decisions but little at of the and delegation other levels). Administration at the level of 1.25  Formal descriptions of post responsibilities is limited (currently, up to division level encourage the senior officials and only in some sectors). development, of the involvement Administration Conclusion: Although the necessity of delegation and responsibility is acknowledged, and motivation delegation is still not part of the culture of the Administration, save for some isolated of civil instances and formal delegation at high hierarchical levels. Experimentation has servants? begun.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 48  Some municipalities have local development plans, which are taken into account at department level, especially in the areas of health and education. 1.5 To what  That practice is limited to certain sectors and, in some cases, occurs at extent do the deconcentrated, rather than decentralized, levels of administration. Administration  Regional authority budgets lack transparency with regard to the budgetary and the framework and development budget allocations. 1.5 Integration regional  Resources at decentralized levels are lacking and, when available, are below of the authorities resources at deconcentrated levels. 1.50 decentralization operate dimension coherently with Conclusion: Decentralization is currently in process in the country. Regarding RBM, a view to objectives are taken into consideration at the decentralized level in some isolated achieving cases but, on the whole, that level lacks budgetary transparency. Experimentation is development in progress. results?

 The shift to RBM is an urgent concern. 1.6 To what  RBM training programs are organized with a view to bringing about and spreading extent has the that change. Government  Capacity-building programs for priority sectors include a RBM component. The provided itself revised PIMAP is in the process of adoption. with the means  A national capacity-building program, including a development management necessary for component, is being drawn up. addressing 1.6 Change in capacity- 2.00 management building as a  As a result of lack of resources and evaluation, there are instances of resistance to genuine project the attainment of the objectives that have been set. for in-depth  The change has not been addressed in a specific and comprehensive manner. change in the Administration Conclusion: Although it is part of strategies and regular activities, RBM is not yet and its regarded as a profound change in the culture of the Administration. Experimentation practices? has been completed.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 49  RBM training activities are organized at the central and regional levels, including various ministries, SCOs, and other bodies (such as INS, PS/PRS and the National Assembly Parliamentary Administration), programs and projects  RBM training modules organized at the international level are recognized and there is a core group of trainers. 1.7 To what  Individual performance is assessed in the health sector and INS. extent does  A census of civil servants has been held. A recruitment plan exists at the national 1.7 Human RBM affect level. resources 1.00 management  There are no RBM training centers or areas of study. management practices at the  Individual assessments are practiced to a very limited extent. individual level? Conclusion: Human resources management should be updated, particularly through the introduction of individual performance assessments over and above the few cases mentioned. RBM training is available but not yet organized in the form of an area of study. This issue constitutes a strategic thrust in the PIMAP. Awareness has been completed. 1.89

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 50  A strategic ADPRS framework linked to relevant results and indicators has been formulated as a result of the PRS assessment.  A national monitoring and evaluation plan has been drawn up within the ADPRS, on the basis of a monitoring and evaluation assessment.  Monitoring and evaluation plans also exist with respect to sectoral strategies (inter alia, Health Development Plan (PDS) monitoring and evaluation guide, Ten-Year Education Development Program (PDDE) monitoring unit, DEP and Statistics Department (DS) inter-ministerial unit for SDR, and National Commission for 2.1 Are public Sustainable Development (CNDD) , a monitoring and evaluation body for the National policies subject Environmental Plan for Sustainable Development (PNEDD)). to a regular and  There is an annual report on ADPRS. 2.1 National sustained  Statistics directorates operate in all Ministries and there are relevant units in INS 2. Monitoring planning monitoring and and NigerInfo. and geared to evaluation 3.00  Not all sectoral indicators are available. Some areas (such as youth and Evaluation development process that governance) are not covered. results permits  Not all ADPRS indicators measure impact. Some relate to products. They do not adjustments in always provide targets for all sectors. performance  As a result of inadequate resources, inter alia, not all monitoring and evaluation objectives? units are operational in the various departments.  A survey on evaluation capacities (conducted in 2007) showed that there is no systematic assessment of public policies.

Conclusion: Clearly, a monitoring and evaluation practice has been launched, particularly in the framework of the ADPRS. However, that practice must be strengthened by ensuring the operation of the units concerned and the standardization of the tools used. Transition has been completed.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 51  DGEPD and INS have been set up with cross-cutting jurisdiction. 2.2 To what  DEP and DS units have been set up in every Ministry. extent does the  Many Ministries lack an adequate number of monitoring and control specialists. Administration  Although relevant training activities have started, the comprehensive monitoring 2.2 Capacity for possess and evaluation capacity-building program at the ADPRS level is in progress and not monitoring and adequate yet fully operational. 2.50 evaluation of capabilities for public policies ensuring monitoring and Conclusion: The units have been set up but the capabilities need to be strengthened. evaluation of A program to that effect is in the process of becoming operational. Transition is in public policies? progress.

 Information systems exist in some departments, including, for instance, the National 2.3 To what Health Information System (SNIS), NigerInfo and the livestock and cereals Market extent does the Information Systems (SIM). Administration  Inter-connections are unavailable between sectors and do not always exist within have adequate the same Ministry (see, for instance the MEF information system). Achieving tools, IT in consistency among the various databases and collection systems is difficult. 2.3 Information particular, to  There is no master plan at the Government level. system and ensure 2.00 decision- monitoring and Conclusion: Information tools and systems exist but are not integrated into a support tools evaluation of comprehensive data processing scheme, including adequate inter-connections for public policies ensuring information accuracy and consistency. Experimentation has been completed. and use of factual data in decision- making?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 52  There have been isolated instances of this practice (for instance, in the form of a 2.4 Has the 2006 national survey on the satisfaction of educational service beneficiaries). administration  The Cabinet has decided that user complaint boxes are to be installed in the put to use Ministries. 2.4 System for means for  The boxes are not yet operational. measuring user measuring 1.25  Measuring user satisfaction is still the exception. satisfaction service quality in order to Conclusion: The need for quality service is acknowledged but measuring the quality in assess user question is so far a rare practice. Experimentation has started. satisfaction?

 Isolated studies have been carried out in order to improve services provided by the 2.5 To what Administration, such as, for instance, access to health care for children up to five degree is years old. factual  Department management, budgets and reports still focus on resources and activities. 2.5 information  Despite the establishment of HCME, no comprehensive measures have been Administration from monitoring taken. PIMAP 2, containing such measures, is expected to be examined by the performance and evaluation Cabinet. 1.00 geared to used to improve development the Conclusion: Department management is still focused on resources and activities, results Administration without actually addressing performance. Awareness. for better development results?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 53  There exists a framework for partnerships with TFPs and a set of common indicators 2.6 What is the at the overall level and for some specific sectors. level of  A process for designing a standard reporting format has been launched in harmonization accordance with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2.6 among TFPs on  Financial reports are drawn up according to an MEF format and a common basic Harmonization national structure has been adopted for sector reports to partners. of information reporting 2.00  As a rule, reports are drawn up in the formats required by the partners, especially at requests by procedures and project level. TFPs on the organization of Conclusion: There is ongoing dialogue on reporting format standardization but no joint missions uniform rules or approach are yet available. Experimentation has been completed. and studies?

1.96

 The relevant structures exist (for instance, the Public Procurement Regulation 3.1 To what Agency (ARMP) and the Court of Auditors). extent do the  These structures are not yet fully operational (this applies, for instance, to the Court control of Auditors). 3.1 institutions  As a result, not all institutional obstacles to independence have been eliminated. 3. Independence (inter alia, the Moreover, a series of related reforms and measures (for instance, the Justice and Accountability of Justice and Court of 2.00 Rule of Law Support Program (PAJED) and the regulation on the status of law and of the higher Auditors) and officers) are in progress. Partnerships Audit the judiciary Institutions function Conclusion: The independence of Justice and the higher Audit Institutions is provided independently for by law but has not yet been fully implemented. There are ongoing reforms to that of the executive end. Experimentation has been completed. branch?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 54  Government action oversight structures exist in the Parliament. 3.2 Up to what  Deputies regularly call Ministers to account. level does the  Fact-finding committees produce results with regard to the policies investigated (for Parliament fulfill instance, in the cases of SONITEL and Samira mining). its role of  Although, where necessary, the Parliament may have recourse to external experts, 3.2 exercising the technical capabilities and resources available are not sufficient for fully carrying Parliament's oversight of out its oversight mission. role in Government 2.75 oversight of action, Conclusion: The Parliament plays an important oversight and supervisory role, Government particularly as thereby exerting, as many examples show, direct influence on public policies. A action regards number of committees have the means to use the technical expertise required by that economic role. Considering the Parliament as a whole, however, the types of competence and policies and knowledge necessary for fulfilling that mission sustainably, regardless of the persons budget in office at any given time, are not yet fully available. Transition has been completed. allocations?

 The media are independent and able to scrutinize Government action.  The State's monopoly over the press has been tangibly reduced. 3.3 To what  The impact of the media on Government action includes, for instance, instances of degree are the calling into question some public procurement contracts. (public and  The press lacks the technical and financial resources necessary for carrying out private) media, 3.3 Media certain inquiries. as a whole, 2.75 independence able to play effectively their Conclusion: Although attested, media independence is limited by inadequate capacity, role in criticizing competence and resources necessary for thorough investigations. Transition has the authorities? been completed.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 55  There are public relations units in some Ministries, a Government communication coordination center, and information directorates.  Certain types of data are published by some Ministries or bodies, such as INS (which publishes the price index), the customs, and the ROSEL website (which 3.4 What is the publishes comprehensive information on the environment) assessment of  There is no policy on the dissemination of information. the level of  Occasionally, there are institutionalized obstacles. For instance, a circular from the 3.4 Public public Prime Minister's Office regulates public access to the information contained in access to 2.00 dissemination administrative documents. results of information by the Conclusion: Although efforts have been made to set up mechanisms designed to Government? promote the transparency of Government action to the public, and certain comprehensive data are available, no effective policy or standard practices are yet implemented for the dissemination of information. Experimentation has been completed.

 Some priority sectors (the rural, health, education and technical training sectors) implement coordination frameworks.  There is a State-Donors Committee for ADPRS. 3.5 To what  A unit for coordination with the Aid Management Platform (AMP) is currently being extent do set up. Administration 3.5  Ministries without a programmatic approach offer no visibility as to potential mechanisms Coordination 2.00 assistance. ensure effective among TFPs  Not all sectoral coordination frameworks are operational (for instance, meetings are coordination held irregularly or the official in charge is absent). among TFP activities? Conclusion: Coordination takes place in some priority sectors but not in others, and it is not promoted by any procedures implemented by the Administration as a whole. Experimentation has been completed.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 56 3.6 To what  Niger and TFPs participate in an alignment procedure, including such steps as an extent do the action plan compatible with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, a code of Administration's ethics, and a forum on aid effectiveness. good MfDR  In practice, activities depend on the availability of resources, regardless of priority 3.6 Alignment practices action plans (for instance, in the case of activities outside the ADPRS priority action of partners on ensure the 3.00 plan). national external  There is no comprehensive policy for official development assistance (ODA). priorities partners' alignment on Conclusion: Action aimed at alignment has been launched but, to this date, certain national activities are not aligned, on both the partners' and the Administration's account. priorities? Transition has been completed. 2.42

 An MTEF exists in some departments (for instance, for the health sector, SDR and PDDE).  There exist procedures for taking priorities into consideration in preparing the budget. 4.1 Are the  These procedures are not understood in some sector Ministries, particularly in instruments of relation to the budget framework. Communication is inadequate at some levels planning 4.1 Budget (between MEF and other Ministries, and within Ministries), between which there is no 4. Planning (ADPRS) and consistency dialogue. and budgeting 2.25 with national  There is no comprehensive MTEF. Budgeting (MTEF and priorities LdF) Conclusion: Procedures have begun to be established for ensuring consistency consistently between the budget and priorities. The main priorities are taken into consideration in articulated? drawing up the budget framework. However, these procedures must be improved in terms of coordination, particularly when the budget framework is drawn up, in order to build a perception common to MEF and the sectors and reduce discrepancies between sectoral needs and the budget. Transition has started.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 57  Performance contracts, based on well-defined objectives, exist for the health sector. 4.2 Is budget  The investment budget is drawn up on the basis of available funding. allocation  In most departments, budget allocations are not a function of results. based on each  Generally speaking, the budget is based on available resources. 4.2 Budget department's preparation results and Conclusion: Generally speaking, the budget is based on available resources and based on 1.25 objectives, expenditure trends. Although they exist, initiatives aimed at linking the budget to objectives and taking into results are still very limited. Experimentation has started. results account the assessment of past results?

 Non-governmental actors participate in budget preparation in some Ministries (for instance, NGOs and unions participate in preparing the health budget). 4.3 To what  The Parliament intervenes at the time of budget adoption, after finalization by the 4.3 extent do non- Government, and not during budget preparation. In particular, it does not participate in Participation of governmental drawing up the budget framework. non- actors  Generally speaking, the legal framework does not provide for civil society governmental participate in 1.00 participation and there are no mechanisms to that effect. actors in the budget budget allocation Conclusion: Non-governmental actors do not participate in drawing up the budget planning and process and in framework. According to the law, the Parliament adopts the budget and may propose preparation results amendments but, overall, this does not constitute participation in the preparation of assessment? the budget. Conclusion: The Awareness stage is in progress.

4.4 Does the  In some departments, there is correspondence with internal objectives (for instance, preparation of this applies to the health sector and MDA). the budget  The practice in question is limited. Generally speaking, the process consists in within a aggregating the budgets prepared by the various directorates. 4.4 Intra- department departmental 1.50 reasonably coordination correspond to Conclusion: Some sectors use a list of objectives in preparing the budget but recourse objectives at to this practice remains limited. Conclusion: Experimentation is in progress. the various levels?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 58  Priority activities are defined in an inter-sectoral framework (for instance, at the level of ADPRS) and involve several Ministries (for instance, with regard to family planning and gender issues). 4.5 To what  Inter-sectoral coordination exists in budget preparation at the level of the rural extent does sector. coordination on 4.5 Inter-  Experimentation is limited to some sectors. In some cases, cooperation is restricted the basis of sectoral 2.00 to dividing up the various activities and does not include preparing the budget in inter-sectoral coordination common. objectives play  The process is difficult because of a lack in supporting instruments. a role in budget

preparation? Conclusion: The inter-sectoral programmatic approach is in place at the level of SDR but is not helped by any tools for results-based budgeting. This is not everywhere the case, but the practice is still limited and hard to follow. Experimentation is in progress. 1.60

 INS is responsible for the implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (SNDS). 5.1 What is the  Data collection by INS and the statistics directorates in the various Ministries is level of regular but of limited scope. 5. Statistical 5.1 Statistics implementation  Surveys are conducted on a regular basis. Data strategy and of the national 3.25  No SNDS review has taken place and the round table on financing has not yet Processing plan strategy for the been held. development of statistics? Conclusion: The mechanisms are in place but the system is still young, pending full operational preparation for the SNDS. Implementation has started.  SNDS includes disaggregation instructions and most of the surveys produce disaggregated data.  The level of disaggregation is not uniform and varies from sector to sector. 5.2 What is the  Lack of resources is an obstacle to more detailed disaggregation (which currently Government’s goes only as far as the departmental level, although greater detail is required in some 5.2 Data capacity in 3.00 cases). disaggregation terms of data disaggregation? Conclusion: Although not yet uniform over all sectors, disaggregation is a common practice. In some cases, more detailed disaggregation is necessary for effective use of data in decision making. Transition has been completed.

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 59 "Niger Info" provides information on all ADPRS and sectoral strategy indicators. 5.3 Is the scope  of available  Not all areas are covered (for instance, employment, governance, youth and statistical data livestock breeding are not). broad enough  Data quality level and usability remain variable. 5.3 Extent of to measure all 2.50 data indicators Conclusion: The scope of statistical data now extends beyond the small number of related to priority sectors but does not yet ensure full coverage commensurate with national national planning. Transition is in progress. priorities?  INS conducts data quality control.  Not all Ministries have access to INS for data validation. As a result, data reliability 5.4 What are varies. the means used  Although some sectors currently work in coordination with INS, INS approval is not by the 5.4 Data quality yet an operational procedure (but will become so as part of SNDS implementation). Administration 2.00 assessment to improve the Conclusion: The practice of data validation is not yet comprehensive but is expected quality of to be generalized through the INS approval procedure. Experimentation has been statistical data? completed.

 Annual and other period surveys (for instance, the consumption budget survey and 5.5 Does the the National Population and Health Survey (EDSN)) are carried out. Administration  Survey regularity does not in all cases imply occurrence every five years. have the 5.5 Capacity for  Not all sectors receive survey findings. capability to conducting and  Although an appropriate tool ("Toolkit") is available, the filing of survey results is not carry out exploiting 2.25 systematic. country-wide country-wide surveys and to surveys Conclusion: Surveys are carried out regularly on a trans-sector basis. However, the file and filing of survey results is not yet systematic and there is room for enhancing data disseminate the dissemination and analysis. Transition has started. findings?

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 60  A model has been developed for assistance and growth (PS/PRS, INS, CAPED and 5.6 Does the MEF Directorate for Forecasting) and the AYEROU model is used for macroeconomic Administration forecasts related to the budget framework. have the 5.6 Capacity for  Models are used infrequently and are not disseminated. capability to analysis and 2.00  Analysis capabilities are limited and modeling capabilities are very rare. analyze modeling statistical data Conclusion: Despite some modeling examples, analysis and modeling capabilities are for forecasting still limited. There is no specific plan for developing such capabilities. Experimentation purposes? has been completed.

2.50

Total 54.25 Average 2.08

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 61 7.6 Correspondence between CAP-Scan and other Frameworks and Documents

The following table contains a preliminary outline of instances of overlapping objectives and/or indicators of the CAP-Scan framework and other planning documents examined.

CAP-Scan Pillars and Other Existing Frameworks and Tools - Objectives and Indicators Dimensions Effective Implementation of ADPRS 2008- 2012 PDS PIMAP Report Performance Indicator set for 2012 1. Leadership Commitment Clarity and Articulation of - 100% of all sectors will have a sectoral Vision policy and a MTEF that is in line with the objectives of the DPRS - Existence of an overall MTEF - Existence of a prospective study entitled "Niger – Vision 2030" Participation of Non-State Actors Responsibility and Delegation Integration of the - 100% of all regions and communes will Strategic thrust 2: Administrative Decentralization Dimension have a development plan that is in line deconcentration with the objectives of Bringing the Administration to the citizens the DPRS Change in Management

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 62 Human Resources 2.3. 6. Instituting quality governance / b) Strategic thrust 3: Modernization of human Management Strengthening administrative governance resources management - Formulating and implementing a policy for forward-looking management of employment and career management - Controlling the size of the personnel and the total wage bill of the State - Building the capacities of the State's human resources managers - Developing and implementing a system for motivating State personnel - Making the employee evaluation system effective

2. Monitoring and Evaluation National Planning Geared - The percentage of monitoring and to Development Results evaluation reports published on time and which lead to action will reach 100% Monitoring and Evaluation - Number of meetings of the coordinating 5.3. Supervision and monitoring of Capacity committees that are held according to activities are strengthened at all levels schedule - Supervision execution rate at all levels

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 63 5.2. The health information system is more effective and ensures more efficient management of epidemics Information Ssystem and - Intervention deadlines in cases of Decision-Support Tools epidemics - Lethality rates for meningitis, measles and cholera Strategic thrust 9: Development of System for Measuring User institutional communication Satisfaction - Providing for a Public Administration attentive to citizens 5.1. Health Ministry design and Strategic thrust 1: Streamlining of units management capacities are strengthened - Stabilizing units - Clarifying the roles and missions of -Existence of a new operational ministerial departments and other public organization chart bodies -Existence of an operational framework for coordination with TFPs Strategic thrust 6: Modernization of material Administration resources management Pperformance Geared to - Modernizing the management of material Development Results resources of the State

Strategic thrust 8: Modernization of administrative procedures - Streamlining and standardizing administrative procedures in the public and quasi-public administrative units

Harmonization of Information Requests by TFPs 3. Accountability and Partnerships

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 64 Independence of Justice 2.3. 6. Instituting quality governance / b) and of the Higher Audit Strengthening the rule of law and justice Institutions reform Parliament's Role in Oversight of Government Action

Media Independence Strategic thrust 9: Development of institutional communication Public Access to Results - Providing for a Public Administration attentive to citizens - Number of parallel program and project implementation bodies. - Number of common procedures and Coordination Among TFPs arrangements implemented. - Number of joint missions carried out

Alignment of Partners on Aid predictability increases from 74% in National Priorities 2005 to 100% - The percentage of programs in line with the DPRS reaches 100%

4. Planning and Budgeting - 100% of all sectors will have a sectoral Strategic thrust 5: Modernization of financial policy and a MTEF that is in line with the resources management objectives of the - Streamlining and modernizing expenditure Budget Consistency with DPRS implementation in order to facilitate National Priorities monitoring and control - Ensuring that budget planning and preparation reflect PRSP priorities and macroeconomic objectives

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 65

Budget Preparation Based on Objectives and Results

Participation of Non- Governmental Actors in Budget Planning and Preparation Intra-Departmental Coordination

Inter-Sectoral Coordination 5. Statistical Data Processing Statistics Strategy and Plan Data Disaggregation Extent of Data Data Quality Assessment Capacity for Conducting - The percentage of programs in line with and Exploiting Country- the DPRS reaches 100% wide Surveys Analysis and Modeling Capacity

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 66 Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 67 7.7 Documents Considered

7.7.1 National Planning

 Accelerated Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, 2008-2012 (October 2007)  Ten-Year Education Development Program (PDDE), Second Phase: 2008-2010 — Quality, Access and Institutional Development Components (August 2007)  Rural Development Strategy (SDR) (November 2003)  Health Development Plan (PDS), 2005-2009 (adopted by the Cabinet on February 18, 2005)  Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) — Health, 2007-2009 (June 2006)  National Reproductive Health Program (PNSR), 2005–2009 (version of June 15, 2005)  PDS Monitoring and Evaluation Guide, 2005-2010 (April 2006)

7.7.2 Studies and Analyses

 Assessment of Niger's institutional mechanism for PRS monitoring and evaluation — HASSANE IDE Adamou, NIANDOU Daouda (November 2006)  National Consultation Mission for the Review of the Comprehensive Program of Modernization of the Administration — Final Report (draft, June 2008)  Formulation of a Comprehensive Capacity-Building Program — Concept Note (November 2008)

7.7.3 Context Documents

 Capacity Assessment — Practice Note (UNDP, June 2008)  Capacity Assessment Methodology — User Guide for National Capacity Development (UNDG, February 2008)  Institutional Assessment and Capacity Development — Why, What and How? (Europaid, September 2005)  Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (March 2005)

Mission report CAP-Scan Niger Page 68