Oxfam NLC Proposal-Final Document

June 2016
Project Proposal on Institutionalizing Transparent and Accountable Public
Financial Management in Nigeria through Participatory Budgeting
Prepared By: Gerald Ogoko
Client: Oxfam Novib Nigeria

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

-2-
Acronyms
CBN Central Bank of Nigeria
CDAs Community Development Associations
CEPA Cambridge Economic Policy Associates
CISLAC Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre
CIT Core Implementation Team
CPPA Centre for Public Policy Alternatives
CPC Consumer Protection Council
COREN The Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria
CRAFT The Capacity for Research Advocacy for Fair Taxation
CSO Civil Society Organization
DELT4SLOG Deepening Expenditure Line Tracking for States and Local Governments
DFID Department for International Development
ECA Excess Crude Account
EFCC Economic & Financial Crimes Commission
EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
ERGP Economic Reform and Governance Project
FASDA Fiscal Allocation and the Statutory Disbursement Audit
FCT Federal Capital Territory
FMoF Federal Ministry of Finance
GCI Global Competitiveness Index
GGP Good Governance Programme
HR Human Resources
IBP International Budget Partnership
ICPC Independent Corrupt Practices Commission
ILO International Labour Organization
LDCs Least Developing Countries
LG Local Government
MDAs Ministries, Departments, and Agencies
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
MTPR Mid Term Performance Reviews
MTSS Medium Term Sector Strategies
NASS National Assembly
NDDC Niger Delta Development Commission
NDEBUMOG Niger Delta Budget Monitoring Group
NEEDS National Economic Empowerment & Development Strategy
NEITI Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
NLC Nigerian Labour Congress
NMA Nigerian Medical Association
NPM New Public Management
NULGE National Union of Local Government Employees
OBI Open Budget Index
PB Participatory Budget
PCC Public Complaints Commission
PEFA Public Expenditure & Financial Accountability
PFM Public Financial Management
PIB Petroleum Industry Bill
PMU Project Monitoring Unit
PO Project Officer
PSAGP Public Sector Accountability & Governance Programme
PSC Project Steering Committee
PSU Project Support Unit
QCBS Quality and Cost-Based Selection
SAP Structural Adjustment Programme

-3-
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely
SO State Officer
SRIP Support to Reforming Institutions Programme
SSC State-level Steering Committee
STREPF Strengthening Public Finance in Nigeria Project
TSA Treasury Single Account
TMG Transition Monitoring Group
TUC Trade Union Congress
ZBB Zero-Based Budgeting

-4-
List of Figures & Tables
FIGURES
Figure 1: Integrating the Theory of Change in the Proposed PB Project…….…………….…21
Figure 2: Proposed Organizational Structure for the Participatory Budget Project...………. 32
TABLES
Table 1: Project Risks & Mitigation Measures………………….………..…………….……… 25
Table 2: Timelines for the Participatory Budget Project……………………..………………...29
Table 3: Task Design/Structure for the Core Implementation Team…………………………35

-5-
Executive Summary
In the last 16 years up until recently, Nigeria earned over 150 billion USD annually in foreign
revenue mostly from crude oil. In the same period, however, poverty rates continued to rise. In
the Global Competitive Index (GCI) 2013 -2014 released by the World Economic Forum, Nigeria
dropped five places from 2012’s 115th position to 120th
among the 148 countries profiled. Poor
service delivery and unaccountable opaque public service have been identified as the twin
contributors to poverty in Nigeria. This situation is likely to worsen as oil prices dwindle and
Nigeria faces one of its worst economic crises in decades.
While this situation presents major challenges, it also provides the country with a new
opportunity to prioritise spending and make budgeting more pro-poor as the only way to avert
economic and social disaster. The election of a new and more prudent government in 2015 also
presents hope in such a shift in spending and behaviour. However, despite the gloomy
economic future ahead and the new government’s willingness to make public spending more
prudent and accountable, change is often difficult, slow and resisted. The 2015-2016 budgeting
exercise in which the budget was ‘padded’, irrelevant and extravagant expenditure added,
attests to the fact that more will be needed to truly transform the budgeting system and make it
more representative of the needs and desires of the majority of the Nigerian people.
Historically, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) has played the key role of ‘defenders of
workers rights’ and by extension the poor and marginalised. They have often challenged
government on unfair wages, unjust dismissals, and price hikes, especially of petroleum. While
their efforts in the past have yielded results, recently this has not been so. Labour has not been
as successful in fighting for workers’ rights as they had been in the past. There are many
factors responsible for this, but paramount amongst these is Labour’s inability to address the
root causes of the worker’s plight. The NLC has most often been reactionary, addressing the
consequences of the problem such as poor wages or redundancies instead of the underlying
causes of the government’s inability to meet the needs of workers; corruption, mismanagement
and inefficient and ineffective budgeting. Despite the recent internal crises within the NLC,
labour still commands the respect of majority of Nigerians as the agency for fighting for the
rights of the poor. Their ability to mobilise huge sectors of the population remains largely intact
making them a key stakeholder in any process that truly hopes to transform Nigeria.
For the NLC to be able to truly improve the situation of workers in particular and Nigerians in
general, they have to become more intrusive in the budget process. They need to demand
greater accountability and citizens’ participation in preparing, implementing and evaluating
budgets as it has been demonstrated from other examples such as Porto Alegre in southern

-6-
Brazil where citizens’ participation in budgetary decision-making can lead to sharp increases in
the reach and coverage of essential services, particularly to the poor. Fostering broad and
meaningful participation in the budget process in Nigeria is particularly challenging because the
government is not inclined to share decision-making power with the public. The limited capacity
of many of the actors –such as the NLC, CSOs, and pressure groups- also limits participation.
Furthermore, the poor generally possess limited education, a low level of literacy, and little
familiarity with the policy process.
This is why Oxfam is seeking support to partner with the NLC for a 5-year project to
institutionalize Participatory Budgeting (PB) in Nigeria for poverty reduction and improved living
standards of Nigerians. PB is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, and a
type of participatory democracy, in which ordinary people decide how to allocate part of
a municipal or public budget. Participatory budgeting allows citizens to identify, discuss, and
prioritize public spending projects, and gives them the power to make real decisions about how
money is spent. When PB is taken seriously and is based on mutual trust, local governments
and citizen can benefit equally. PB has the potential to provide social inclusion and social equity
in the decision making of the allocation of resources in communities with low socioeconomic
statuses.1
In particular, the project will empower the NLC, relevant civil society organisations, the media
and key citizens groups at the national and state levels on participatory budgeting (PB) to
influence budget formulation and monitor public spending, enhance progressive revenue
mobilization and expenditure, ensure efficient and pro poor budget implementation, promote
gender responsive budgeting, and increase pressure on government agencies to be transparent
and accountable in budget matters. This will contribute to existing efforts to reduce corruption at
all levels of government. Through journalism training, the media will be enabled to provide
relevant, accurate and easy-to-understand coverage of government revenue streams, budget
formulation, and the tracking of expenditure.
By targeting reforms in public resource management and improvement in public service
delivery, Oxfam would be contributing to solving the root causes of poverty in Nigeria. In doing
this, Oxfam will support financial management best practices in public institutions and
institutionalize systems that are critical to improved service delivery, transparency and
accountability in public service; as well as provide support to non-state actors (civil society),
especially the NLC, by equipping them with the necessary skills to demand good public
governance.
1
Montambeault, Francoise (2016). "Between collective action and individual appropriation: The informal dimensions
of participatory budgeting in Recife, Brazil". Politics and Society.

-7-
1. RATIONALE
1.1 Background
Poor public expenditure management in Nigeria has greatly hampered the quality of
government capital projects (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007; Soludo, 2007; King,
2003). This has resulted in poor service delivery to citizens. According to Okonjo-Iweala and
Osafo-Kwaako (2007), weaknesses in budget implementation and monitoring had in the past,
resulted in low quality of government expenditures and many uncompleted projects. In their
opinion, strengthening the budget preparation and execution process was, therefore, urgently
needed in order to improve the efficiency of government spending and improve service delivery
to the Nigerian public (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007). According to a report in
ThisDay newspaper (2009) which was based on a comprehensive study conducted by the
International Budget Partnership (IBP) in 2008, “Nigeria is among 25 countries in the world that
provide scant or no budget information to enable the public hold the government accountable
for managing their money” (Ikokwu, 2009). The study went on to conclude that nearly 50% of
national governments are successful in hiding “unpopular, wasteful and corrupt” spending from
the public. In the study, Nigeria scored 19 on a scale of 1 to 100 in the Open Budget Index
(2008).
Seven years after, the Open Budget Index score for Nigeria has not improved, remaining at 24
over 100. In the Open Budget Index score, each country is given a score out of 100 which
determines its ranking on the Open Budget Index – the world’s only independent and
comparative measure of budget transparency. Nigeria’s score of 24 out of 100 is substantially
lower than the global average score of 45. According to the Open Budget Index Report for
Nigeria, the Government has been inconsistent in which documents are made publicly available
in a given year. Since 2012, the Government of Nigeria has increased the availability of budget
information by:
 Publishing the Citizens Budget.
 Improving the comprehensiveness of the Executive’s Budget Proposal.
 Improving the comprehensiveness of the Enacted Budget and Year-End Report.
The budget process in Nigeria is constrained by the following factors:
 The government failing to publish a Pre-Budget Statement and In-Year Reports in a
timely manner.
 Excessive bureaucracy underscores the budget formulation process and this is
responsible for delays, i.e. failure to comply with the statutory budget cycle.

-8-
 The budget process is not open. Releases are done without the knowledge of citizens
and this creates room for corruption and mismanagement of public resources.
Moreover, the Government of Nigeria has failed to make progress, continuing to produce both
the Mid-Year Review and the Audit Report for internal use only, and so not making them
available to the public. Poor access to and quality of budget information further undermines the
ability of civil society organizations and the media to research, monitor and comment on
government budgeting.
Evidence suggests that transparency alone is insufficient for improving governance, and that
public participation in budgeting can maximize the positive outcomes associated with greater
budget transparency. To measure public participation, the Open Budget Survey assesses the
degree to which the government provides opportunities for the public to engage in budget
processes. Such opportunities should be provided throughout the budget cycle by the
executive, the legislature, and the supreme audit institution. Nigeria’s score of 25 out of 100
indicates that the provision of opportunities for the public to engage in the budget process is
weak. This is the same as the global average score of 25.
The Open Budget Survey examines the extent to which legislatures and supreme audit
institutions are able to provide effective oversight of the budget. These institutions play a critical
role – often enshrined in national constitutions – in planning budgets and overseeing their
implementation. For Nigeria, the report indicates that the legislature provides limited oversight
during the planning stage of the budget cycle and adequate oversight during the implementation
stage of the budget cycle. However, the Executive’s Budget Proposal is not provided to
legislators at least three months before the start of the budget year, nor is it approved by
legislators at least one month before the start of the budget year. In addition, in both law and
practice, the legislature is not consulted prior to spending contingency funds that were not
identified in the Enacted Budget. The report also notes that the supreme audit institution
provides limited budget oversight. Under the law, it has significant discretion to undertake audits
as it sees fit. Moreover, the head of the supreme audit institution cannot be removed without
legislative or judicial approval, which bolsters its independence. Finally, the supreme audit
institution is provided with insufficient resources to fulfil its mandate and has no quality
assurance system in place.
The following measures are critical to improving budget transparency in Nigeria:
 Strengthening the technical capacity of government MDAs to generate the basic budget
documents required by international best practices in budget transparency. This can be
achieved by introducing comprehensive information systems to enhance the capacity of

-9-
government at all levels to produce accurate and timely budget information. This can be
achieved by creating or leveraging on existing information disclosure mechanisms, such
as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act,2
to encourage the government to proactively
make information available to the public. For this purpose, donor agencies can support
the government in establishing e-government systems that harness the power of
Information Technology (IT).
 Strengthening the capacity of the National Assembly (NASS) and State Assemblies
Budget Appropriation Committee to provide much needed oversight over the budget
process, especially during implementation.
 Strengthening the capacity of CSOs and pressure groups –particularly the NLC- in
conducting value-for-money audits on government projects and programs both at the
national and state levels.
The government should prioritize the following actions to improve budget participation in
Nigeria:
 Establish credible and effective mechanisms (i.e., public hearings, surveys, focus
groups) for capturing a range of public perspectives during budget planning, and
introduce public engagement mechanisms to support monitoring of budget
implementation.
 Hold legislative hearings to review and scrutinize Audit Reports.
 Establish formal mechanisms for the public to assist the supreme audit institution to
formulate its audit program and participate in audit investigations.
To strengthen budget oversight, Nigeria should prioritize the following actions:
 Ensure the Executive’s Budget Proposal is provided to legislators at least three months
before the start of the budget year.
 In both law and practice, ensure the legislature is consulted prior to the spending of
contingency funds that were not identified in the Enacted Budget. This can be
complemented by strengthening the capacity of the National and State Assemblies’
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to serve as platforms for sharing experiences and
building their technical capacity to scrutinize implementation of national budgets.
 Ensure that the Office of the Auditor-General has adequate funding to perform its duties,
as determined by an independent body (e.g., the legislature or judiciary).
2
The FOI Act of 2011 gives all citizens access to government records and information about public institutions. This
Act can be invoked by citizens to access government records and is vital to improving citizen participation in the
Nigerian budget process.

-10-
The shortcomings in budget participation are unlikely to be addressed if civil society in Nigeria
remains weak and is excluded from the budget process. PB programs depend on the effective
engagement of three key domestic stakeholders: government, civil society, and legislatures.
Current State of Public Finance in Nigeria
Public Financial Management (PFM) reforms have been a key aspect of the reform agenda in
Nigeria over the period since the re-establishment of democratic rule in 1999. As in many other
countries, the fundamental rationale for pursuing PFM reforms is the expectation that
improvements in how public finances are managed translates into better service delivery relative
to resources. And consequently, an improved living condition for the citizens. However, realities
of PFM in Nigeria grossly discriminate against the majority of the people and ignore their
predicaments. This is compounded by little or no benchmarking mechanism for assessing
budget performance. Budgeting largely remains the exclusive purviews of the ruling elite who
are largely power arrogates and less sensitive to the needs of citizens. This has prevented the
benefits of economic growth from reaching the poor and caused economic dislocation particular
in the formal sector where employment creation has not kept pace with a rapidly growing
workforce.
The write-off of a substantial proportion of Nigeria’s external debt in 2005/6, and relatively
strong oil prices improved the fiscal position of government substantially up to 2009. However,
large public sector wage increases in 2009 led to expenditure falling behind revenues in 2009
and 2010. A deficit re-emerged in 2013 and 2014. The collapse of oil prices during 2014 has led
to a decline in projected oil revenues from 5.8% to 3.4% of GDP, and growth is expected to fall
below 5% in 2015. The rapid expansion of government expenditure since 2006 has meant that
insufficient reserves have been built up in the Excess Crude Account (ECA) to buffer the fiscal
position against the oil price fall. The government responded to the prospect of reduced oil
revenues with measures to increase non-oil tax revenues and to contain public expenditure.3
Nigeria’s PFM performance has been significantly below that of the average of Sub-Saharan
African countries, and even further below that of Lower Middle Income Countries. A PEFA
review undertaken in 2012 recorded the following findings although an agreement was not
reached with the authorities on the findings:
:
 Credibility of the budget is undermined by inability to maintain the composition of the
budget during implementation and that strategic focus of budget is adversely affected.
3
Non-debt recurrent expenditure in 2016 Budget is NGN2.65tn.

-11-
 The level of transparency and comprehensiveness of fiscal reporting in Federal and
Subnational government is limited, apart from the well-publicized revenue sharing
formula and monthly disclosures of statutory allocations.
 Obscure link between fiscal policy and public expenditure.
 Though tax administration and the legal and regulatory framework for public
procurement are satisfactory, these have not led to implementation of the budget in an
orderly and predictable manner.
 Arrangements for scrutiny of public finances are comprehensive, but not for audit follow
up.
 The budget process is less participative and largely excludes the majority of the people
whose overall interest are consequently subsumed under those of the political elite. This
has resulted in a sharp increase in poverty levels as well as widening the gap between
the rich and the poor.4
The report noted that budget performance in Nigeria can be improved by adopting the following
measures:
 Establishing a budgeting system that comes up with a fiscal framework that is
sustainable over the medium term and beyond.5
 Provision of relevant information to the various stakeholders –especially civil society- at
the right time in order to assist in effective allocation and utilization of public resources.
 The budget should be prepared on timely basis and approved by National Assembly
preferably before the beginning of financial year. This will also ensure that we have a
meaningful cash plan by the Accountant-General as required by Section 26 of Fiscal
Responsibility Act.
 Allocating resources to programmes on the basis of the country’s development priorities
and programme effectiveness.
 As much as possible, the citizens should be carried along by the government so that the
budget reflects their preferences which in turn should encourage prompt payment of
taxes.
1.2.1 Existing Institutional Arrangements for Budgeting in Nigeria
Nigeria has fragmented and complex institutional arrangements for the budget process, with the
Federal Ministry of Finance (FMoF) only controlling part of the process, and the National
Assembly having limited influence over revenue decisions. The 2007 Fiscal Responsibility and
4
Public Financial Management Reform Opportunities at Federal Level in Nigeria: Policy Note, a study commissioned
by the World Bank in May 2015
5
The government has taken a significant step in this regard with the establishment of the Medium Term Expenditure
Framework (MTEF).

-12-
Public Procurement Acts sought to strengthen institutional arrangements for the management of
fiscal funds and procurement processes, but these have only been implemented to a limited
extent. The legal provisions guaranteeing the autonomy of the Auditor General’s function are
also relatively weak. Furthermore, audit outcomes stemming from the Office of the Auditor
General are rarely implemented both at the federal and state levels.
Executive-legislative relations pose a particular challenge for the budget process. The process
of National Assembly scrutiny (and conflict between the executive and legislative branches) has
tended to lead to the expansion of budgeted expenditures, and long and unpredictable delays in
budget approval. Constitutional and legal arrangements around the role of the National
Assembly in the budget process are vague. In addition, significant delays and deviations from
budget occur during execution. In particular, approved budget heads are not equivalent to
funds being made available to MDAs.
While current legal provisions do not provide a strong role for the External Audit function, the
National Assembly has sweeping investigative powers. The Fiscal Responsibility Commission
also has considerable powers which are not currently being exercised. The Auditor General is
also seeking to modernise and strengthen the role of his office – including through seeking to
secure the right to make audit reports available directly to the public, rather than through the
National Assembly.
All these limit the ability of citizens to contribute to the direction of PFM in the country. Citizens’
participation in budgeting is almost non-existent. This is exacerbated by many Nigerians being
poorly informed about the sources, nature and volume of government revenue and expenditure.
This situation is not helped by the fact that the middle class as well as the majority of the poor of
the country are poorly organised and thereby unable to constitute a strong demand force on
government. As a result, government remain largely unaccountable for the management of the
country’s huge commonwealth. The result has been that that while national budgets are
increasing by the year, public utilities and infrastructure continue to deteriorate and budgets
over the years have continued to under deliver on services and infrastructure The more
government increases its budgets, the poorer the people become and the wider the gap
between the rich and the poor.
Several attempts have been made by government and development partners over the years to
improve PFM in Nigeria. These include:
 The 2004 National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) which
was supposed to be a ‘home-grown’ economic development strategy focused on four
main areas: improving the macro-economic environment, pursuing structural reforms,
strengthening public expenditure management, and implementing institutional and

-13-
governance reforms (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007). The implementation of
the comprehensive economic reform programme was in four main areas:
Macroeconomic reform; structural reforms; government and institutional reforms; and
public sector reforms (Iba, 2007). Under the Macroeconomic Reforms Programme,
government adopted prudent oil price-based fiscal rule; introduced Medium Term
Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and Medium Term Sector Strategies (MTSS); improved
implementation of monetary policy by Central Bank; undertook a bank consolidation
exercise to strengthen financial sector; adopted trade liberalization policies; and
undertook the privatization of some government enterprises. One of the major
challenges was to introduce an appropriate fiscal rule to cut the link between public
expenditures and oil revenue earnings. This way, external shocks to the economy would
be minimized. Under the Structural Reforms Programmes, there has been civil service
reform, deregulation of government activities, bank-consolidation exercise to strengthen
the financial sector; trade policy reform; and privatization of some government
enterprises. Under Institutional and governance reforms, government introduced the Due
Process mechanism in public procurement; reformed public expenditure management;
adopted the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Nigeria; and
established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as well as the
Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) to address corruption in public
offices. Under public sector reform, there was a restructuring of some government
agencies and an expectation of improvements in service delivery.
 The Enactment of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007) to provide the framework for the
implementation of the public sector reforms undertaken by the government. The Act,
according to the then Minister of State for Finance, Nenadi Usman, is expected to
“underpin the economic growth of the country as Nigeria’s finances will be managed at a
very high standard, and also to revolutionize the budgeting process” (The African
Economy, 2006). Although the Fiscal Responsibility Act was signed into law in 2007, the
MTSS, according to the Budget Office of the Federation (2009), has been a feature of
the budget preparation process since 2005. The Budget Office reckons that this covers
at least 80% of MDAs Expenditure (Budget Office of the Federation, 2009).
 The Economic Reform and Governance Project (ERGP) is a World Bank-funded
governance project that aimed to improve the federal government’s administrative,
financial, human resource and statistical systems.6
This project concluded in 2013 and
some of its key achievements are as follows: (i) a reallocation of credit proceeds across
disbursement categories in five implementing agencies; (ii) a revision of the project
6
The World Bank-funded ERGP started in 2004 and end in 2013. Negotiations are currently underway to initiate a
second phase for this project given its welcomed achievements.

-14-
results framework for evaluating PFM performance; (iii) marked improvements in tax
policy and administration; and (iv) significant cost savings achieved from improved
procurement processes. ERGP formed the basis for the introduction of the Government
Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS). With the introduction of
GIFMIS, a new multi-dimensional Chart of Accounts (COA) has been designed.
Implementation of the new COA commenced with the 2011 budget and a Treasury
Circular has been issued directing Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of
government to adopt it in execution of the budget. The new classification system is made
up of 6 segments, namely: Administrative, Economic, Functional, Fund, Program and
Geographic segments. The COA provides a robust mechanism for the classification of
public resources under the budget as well as tracking receipts and payments during
budget execution. In particular, the new classification system seeks to support one of the
key deliverables of the government’s Economic Reform and Governance Project
(ERGP) which is the “adoption of more transparent and modern economic and financial
management systems and processes that are less prone to corruption”. The new
classification system supports all extant reporting and disclosure requirements under the
Nigerian Public Finance Management (PFM) legal framework. In addition, it has been
designed to facilitate compliance with major international public sector accounting and
reporting standards.
 Treasury Single Account (TSA) was recently implemented fully in the Nigerian economy
by the current administration in order to ensure prudence and probity in the management
of financial resources. With the TSA government expects to block all loopholes and
leakages of financial resources of the government and also ensure a robust financial
management system. Although domiciled to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the TSA
ensures that the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMoF) has full control over budget
allocations, and strengthens the authority of the budget appropriation. Previously when
separate bank accounts were maintained by government MDAs, the result was often a
fragmented system, where additional cash resources that became available through
various creative, often extra-budgetary, measures augment funds provided for budgetary
appropriations.
1.2.2 Efforts to Institutionalize Participatory Budgeting in Nigeria
With the success of the Brazilian model and a growing number of other successful experiments
around the world, that have demonstrated that participation by poor citizens in budgetary
decision-making can lead to sharp increases in the reach and coverage of essential services,
particularly to the poor, a growing number of programmes at reforming Nigeria’s PFM have
attempted to introduce participatory budgeting. For instance, President Olusegun Obasanjo in
2001 formally launched participatory budgeting in government through the creation of

-15-
Community Development Associations (CDAs). Its aim was to acquaint citizens with new
thinking in fiscal management and raise the general awareness of citizens regarding their right
to a better life. This new initiative was intended to give the citizens more opportunities to better
understand their obligations towards the government as well as create a framework of inter-
dependence between the executive, legislature and the judicial system of government as a way
of boosting citizens and civil society’s participation in budgetary engagement and processes.
But the idea never worked in reality the as the ruling elite retains their hold on the monopoly of
the budget process and the entire apparatus for PFM. Development partners were not left out in
supporting the government’s reform agenda. The European Union provided support through
various projects including the Support to Reforming Institutions Programme (SRIP) aimed at
encouraging budget reform and transparency and citizen’s participation in the budget process.
DFID’s Public Sector Accountability and Governance Programme (PSAGP) also supported the
government’s reform agenda and aimed to improve citizen’s participation in governance.
Since these initial attempts, there have been pockets of efforts -mainly by development partners
supporting CSOs- to introduce participatory budgeting into the Nigeria polity. However, most of
these efforts are small, brief, short-lived and also focus exclusively on CSOs as their main
vehicles of delivery many of whom do not have the mobilizing power needed to activate the
citizens to challenge the status quo. Consequently, these initiatives have not been able to make
any significant impact. Currently, over 90% of Nigerians remain excluded from active
participation in budgeting.
1.3 Statement of Problem and Opportunities
In the last two decades, especially with the advent of globalisation and liberalisation,
governments in every country saw partnership, as a key governance initiative and as an
important methodology for pursuing economic development. Mostly driven by public/private
partnerships, these practices took different forms in different countries. Guthrie (2003)
summarises public sector partnerships within the context of what has come to be known as New
Public Management (NPM) initiative. According to this account, throughout the twentieth
century, the public service tradition of the politically disinterested, aloof, ‘expert’ bureaucracy7
was slowly eroding in many of the developed nations as it became mired in crises related to the
growing costs of public services due to the increasing scale of provision and alleged
inefficiencies.8
In Nigeria as in other developing countries, these arrangements that often were
maintained as a colonial legacy degenerated into elite-based self-serving institutions serving the
7
Felts, A. A., and Jos, P. H. (1996) The Contemporary Challenges to the Administrative State: A Weberian Analysis,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 21-36.
8
Guthrie, D. M. (2003). Engaged Governance: An institutional Approach to Government/Community Engagement, A
Background Paper. Prepared for and presented at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Interregional Workshop on “Engaged Governance”. Colombo, Sri Lanka. December 9-11, 2003

-16-
interests of their own and those of the ruling clique, in a collusive manner. 9
During this time, the
emerging patron-client-agent nexus perpetrated through the elite bureaucracies and non-
accountable political regimes that made the rich richer and the poor poorer, was regarded by
some as a crisis of “coalition of indifference.”10
Barring the differences in scale and extent, governments both in the developing as well as in the
developed countries, were perceived to lack accountability leading to increasing community
dissatisfaction and as a result, demands for alternative means of delivering those services also
emerged. Many in the West saw privatisation as an option of allowing greater public choice.11
The latter was exacerbated further by the forces of globalisation and liberalisation. While
privatisation did help in stimulating economic growth and reducing government costs in many
countries and indeed, more recently globalisation and liberalisation also contributed to the
prosperity of many nations and within nations the communities, these initiatives equally led to,
what some would argue, a situation of “inexorable marginalisation”12
Many Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are falling behind and in a number of cases, the
emerging marginalisation process contributed to the disempowerment of the poor, the
disadvantaged and the ethnic minorities from the mainstream of the societies. In these
situations, the poor and the disadvantaged are being side-lined and the political economy of the
electoral governance of some of these countries seem to leave insufficient space for the
representation of the interests of these marginalised groups into the decision-making processes
of the state. These emerging challenges are prompting many to recognize the deficiencies in
the functioning of representational democracy and are looking for alternative ways, something
that is beyond the formal institutions of representations, to a public policy-making process where
citizens, especially the poor and the disadvantaged can be mainstreamed. A report by
Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) noted that the period of intense liberalization
and extensive use of market-based solutions in developing countries accompanied the rise of
asymmetrical partnerships, where the public sector became a minor or a disadvantaged partner.
These partnerships, prevalent during 1980s and 1990s with the rise of neo-liberal values
9
Khan, M. Adil (2004a) Pro-Poor Policy Processes and Institutions: A Political Economic Discussion. Conference
Publication: Eastern Regional Organization of Public Administration 2003. ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/68.
10
Korten, David C. (1983) Bureaucracy and the Poor: Closing the Gap. Kumarian. London. 1983.
Ackroyd, S. (1995), From public administration to public sector management Understanding Contemporary Change in
British public services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol, 8, No. 2, pp 19-32;
Esquith, S. (1997) John Rawls and the recent history of public administration. Journal of Management History, Vol. 3,
No. 4, pp 328-341.
12
Dowlah, Caf (2004) Backwaters of Global Prosperity. How Forces of Globalization and GATT/WTO Trade Regimes
Contribute to the Marginalization of the World’s Poorest Nations. Praeger. London 2004

-17-
strongly propagated by the West, often did little to serve the interests of those that lacked the
effective purchasing power, namely, the poor.13
These solutions of the West (i.e., private sector ‘solutions’ to public sector ‘problems’),
emphasised strategic planning, performance measurement, accountability, results,
purchaser/provider split, contracting out and ‘doing more with less.14
These managerial tools
drawn from the corporate sector were transferred, sometime without much thought to the public
sector. This juxtaposition seemed to have been fraught with one major flaw; the public became
connected now to the State as “consumers with the ability to choose and complain [although]
not the ability to proactively shape services.”15
Result has been that the interests of the
powerless, the hard-core poor, the ethnic minority, the aged etc. got side-lined and the existing
democratic institutions, the electoral democracy, that got hijacked by the rich and the lobbyists
created no space for the marginalised. These emerging challenges started, for the first time, to
prompt many to see the limitations of electoral governance and to recognize the importance of
linking public administration, social equity, and ethics with citizen participation.16
There are now two billion people on earth who continue to remain poor and most alarmingly, the
numbers are increasing. An Oxfam report further noted that 62 people own more than half the
world. What is equally telling is that during the 1990s, many developing countries experienced
significant economic reversals or stagnation which has impacted negatively on the MDGs. The
Oxfam report An Economy for the 1%, shows that the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s
population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010, a drop of 38 percent. This has occurred
despite the global population increasing by around 400 million people during that period.
Meanwhile, the wealth of the richest 62 has increased by more than half a trillion dollars to
$1.76tn.
Many attribute this falling performance to weak governance institutions, entrenched corruption
and a post-colonial legacy of elitist public administration and indeed, under-developed human
capital (de Alcantara, 1998). It is, therefore, not so surprising that when the same market-
managerialist solutions of the West were applied to the developing countries that contained
serious systemic problems, the outcome was that many of these initiatives either failed to
produce any tangible results or yielded only marginal benefits. Furthermore, prompted by the
Bretton Woods institutions, many developing governments withdrew or decreased government
13
See, Strengthening Public Administration for the Millennium Development Goals: A Partnership Building Approach.
UN Committee of Experts. E/C.16/2004/5
14
Hood, c (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 3-19.
15
Corrigan, P. and Joyce, P. (1997) Five arguments for deliberative democracy, Political Studies, 48(5), pp. 947-969
de Alcantara, C.H. (1998) Uses
16
Esquith, S. (1997) John Rawls and the recent history of public administration. Journal of Management History, Vol.
3, No. 4, pp 328-341.

-18-
funding in social development leading to lower health and education facilities, especially for the
poor. Being powerless and voiceless the vulnerable groups had little or no means to either
express their concerns or make their voices heard in any effective manner or to take the
recourse of an institutional means to press for their demands. It became apparent that in many
developing countries cuts in health budget for instance, mainly included cuts in preventive
medicine and not the curative — the former benefits the poor whereas, the latter the rich. In
general, frustrated with the continuous failure of the state in addressing citizen’s needs in an
equal and fair manner and in recognition of the perceived challenges faced by an introverted
public administration and the inadequacies in the functioning of representative democracies, a
demand for a re-examination of the existing governance arrangements, particularly that of
policy-making processes became imminent.
Given the aforementioned problems, many looked for solutions that are more citizen-based and
accountable, especially for those matters that are directly linked to the rights and welfare of the
poor (Merrien, 1988). Furthermore, the nagging problem of poverty and growing inequality as
well as the threat to environmental sustainability, also prompted many to demand greater legal
space in governance for the citizens. More specifically, demand was made for a direct say in the
management and distribution of public resources. Many see these emerging demands of direct
engagements or what some call ‘participatory publics’ as nothing but a quest for an institutional
option that is conducive to achieving ‘good governance’ and ‘rights-based development’ in a
society (Wampler and Avritzer, 2004).
In Nigeria, this call for greater citizen’s participation is hampered by a budgeting system that is
not transparent and a weak electorate that is poorly informed on the issue of public finance with
limited knowledge of how government generates and utilizes revenue, especially taxes. This
limits citizens’ ability to hold government accountable. As a consequence, the desired
redistributive effect of oil revenue, taxation and other resources is not being experienced,
leading to increased inequality. Programmes have been introduced to try and address the issue,
as mentioned elsewhere but the lack of a recognised rallying point for citizens to unite and
effectively demand transparency and accountability has limited progress. While many agree that
direct citizen participation in public affairs is the way of the future, the challenge remains as to
how to operationalise citizen/government dialoguing and participatory budgeting in
implementing ‘engaged governance’ practice within a democracy.
A window of opportunity presents itself with the new Nigerian government’s town hall meetings.
The present government has instituted ‘Town Hall Meetings’ as a means of informing citizens on
activities of government. This shows an openness to engage with civil society in a way never
witnessed before in governance in Nigeria. This project will build on this opportunity to advance
PB.

-19-
1.4 Objectives of the Participatory Budget Project
The underlying basis for this project is strengthening accountability and transparency in public
resource utilization. To this end, these are the main objectives of this project:
 Objective 1: To strengthen the capacity of NLC & its Allies in participatory budgeting.
 Objective 2: To stimulate national discourse on targeted public service delivery with a
view to lifting many Nigerians out of poverty.
 Objective 3: To improve access to public service delivery for the poor, i.e. To ensure
efficient and pro poor budget implementation
 Objective 4: To create mechanisms for strengthening engagement between government
and citizens on budget-related issues, i.e. putting citizens in the driving seat of the
budget formulation and implementation process.
 Objective 5: To establish effective mechanisms for tracking government spending at the
national and state levels.

-20-
2. The Oxfam/NLC Intervention
As an organisation at the forefront of ending poverty, Oxfam recognises that the vast majority of
the Nigerian people’s lives will improve only when the resources of the country are equitably
distributed through a transparent, inclusive, pro-poor budget system. This can only happen in
Nigeria when:
 The budget reflects the expectations and development priorities of the vast majority of
citizens.
 The strategic focus and composition of the budget is maintained during implementation.
 The level of transparency and comprehensiveness of fiscal reporting in Federal and
Subnational government is high.
 Higher direct link between fiscal policy and public expenditure.
 The implementation of the budget is done in an orderly and predictable manner.
 Budget execution and financial reporting improves and allows for better reallocation of
resources optimally.
 Arrangements for audit follow-ups are comprehensive.
 Citizens are involved and engaged throughout the budget process, i.e. from formulation
to actual implementation.
All these can be achieved when there is greater citizen’s participation in the budgeting process.
This approach will enhance fiscal responsibility in Nigeria. Past attempts at introducing PB in
Nigeria have not been successful for the following reasons:
 The projects has been small, brief and short lived.
 The projects have not been able to activate citizens to challenge the status quo.
 Lack of synergy between the government and relevant stakeholders especially during
the budget formulation stage.
 Excessive focus on the demand-side facet of the problem (i.e. citizens, CSOs) with
limited emphasis on the engagement of the supply-side element (i.e. the government).
Oxfam hopes to address the shortcomings of past projects by adopting a different approach to
PB in Nigeria by borrowing from the Brazilian model where participatory budgeting (PB) in some
Municipal Councils in Brazil have enabled citizens to present their demands and priorities for
civic improvement. With the Brazilian model, people are able to influence -through discussions
and negotiation- budget allocations made by their municipalities. Budget allocations for public
welfare works are made only after the recommendations of people’s delegates and approval by
the city council. The positive impact of PB in Brazil is a noticeable improvement in the
accessibility and quality of various public welfare amenities in those municipalities that have

-21-
adopted it. The participation and influence of people belonging to low-income groups in the
budget allocation process are proof of their empowerment.
The success of the Brazilian model, it is recognised stems largely from the Brazilian Workers
Party (PT) winning the municipal elections in Porto Alegre in 1989 and proceeding to
implement an experiment of decentralised decision-making in the city. In the absence of a truly
representative Labour Party winning elections in Nigeria, to replicate the model, Oxfam will
partner with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) to build a movement of active citizens able to
engage with the agencies of government in Nigeria and foster a sustainable platform as a
rallying point for budget reform and participatory budgeting. The NLC presents a ready
institution and platform for this because of its national spread and ability to mobilize and rally
workers and the general populace to action to effect change at critical times and in key areas.
However, their ability to do this effectively is seriously hampered by the lack of capacity and
structure. This project will address this and institutionalise PB in Nigeria using the following
approach (see Figure 1):
Figure 1: Theory of Change in the Proposed PB Project
Problem Solution Activities Output Impact
The
Project
The
Big
Picture
DISCONNECT
BETWEEN PUBLIC
BUDGETS &
PEOPLE
Few Opportunities
for citizens to shape
public Budgets
Budgets often fail to
address citizens’ real
needs
PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING (PB)
Empower people to
directly decide public
budgets through
robust and sustained
PB processes
PARTNER WITH NLC
TO DEEPEN AND
INSTITUTIONALISE
PB
Build Capacities
Build networks
Pilot PB in select
MDAs. PB networks to
consist of relevant
stakeholders.
EMPOWERED
CITIZENS/IMPROVE
D SERVICE
DELIVERY
Active Citizens
Open, effective and
efficient governance
Improved service
delivery
BROKEN
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT
AND THE PEOPLE
Low Trust in
Government
Few Meaningful
opportunities to
impact government
INNOVATIONS IN
DEMOCRACY &
CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT
Create opportunities
for empowered
citizens
REPLICATE &
EXPAND
INNOVATIONS
Develop programmes
and actions that
entrench and spread
public participation in
governance
MORE INCLUSIVE
AND
PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY
Renewed trust in
Government
Broad participation
that meaningfully
impacts governance
and democracy
A JUST NIGERIA
WITHOUT
POVERTY
A pro-poor
democratic system
were citizens are
at the heart of
governance
AN ENTRENCHED
DEMOCRACY
A democratic and
just Government
with citizens’
participation as the
norm
Improved reach of
public services to
the most
vulnerable groups

-22-
2.1 Technical Approach
For the Oxfam/NLC project, the citizen participation and pro-poor budgeting being proposed will
be underpinned more clearly by the agenda of poverty reduction and social development and
the processes of decision-making that provide inputs to the formulation and implementation of
strategies that will be engaging and citizen-based. There are two main types of participatory
budgeting programs namely: (i) participatory budgeting public works; and (ii) participatory
budgeting thematics. This project focuses on participatory budgeting thematics, i.e. the software
component of a citizen-led budget program. Consequently, this project focuses on general
spending policies; these policies focus on more general trends, such as budget allocations for
different capital and social development projects. Improving transparency in the budget process
will be achieved by enhancing the capacity of civil society and pressure groups as it relates to
the budget process in Nigeria. Any achievements recorded in this regard are expected to trickle
down to the broader citizenry, i.e. improved public service delivery and pro-poor policies.
Based on the Brazilian model, the main features of PB include:
 A geographical structure that breaks down existing administrative boundaries facilitating
citizen inclusion, citizen participation and involvement decision-making and pro-poor
budgeting.
 Regularly scheduled meetings and debates in each geographical unit, to engage citizens
in discussions to decide strategic priorities for capital investments and services, develop
actions plans and evaluate and monitor on-going activity, in a manner which
complements existing representative democratic structures.
 A cycle of activities closely following the budgeting cycle which provides a framework for
participation, planning and implementation.
 A network of organizations involved in capacity-building, information dissemination,
public communication, and citizen mobilization.
Target Groups
a) Beneficiaries: Nigerian workers, CSOs (e.g. Centre for Public Policy Alternatives
(CPPA), BudgIT), local communities, market women, small scale farmers, artisans,
traders, local governments, MDAs, private sectors etc.
b) Stakeholders: NLC, CSOs, Oxfam, government, Legislators, private sectors,
professional bodies, regulatory bodies (i.e. Public Complaints Commission, Consumer
Protection Council (CPC) etc), trade associations, Pressure groups etc.
Geographical Location
a) National level
b) 3 states

-23-
The project will be divided into three phases. Phase one will comprise of research (i.e. baseline
surveys, situational analysis, political economy analysis), capacity building for the NLC and
relevant pressure groups, and stakeholder consultations; Phase two will focus on citizens’
mobilization and NLC pilots to practicalize PB; and Phase three will focus on implementing a
participative budget cycle in close coordination with the NLC and the national and state
assemblies. Comprehensive explanation of the expectations for the three project phases is
discussed subsequently.
2.1.1 Phase 1: Research, Capacity building, and stakeholder Consultations
As noted earlier, this project focuses on the software component of participatory budgeting, i.e.
budget thematics. Phase I of this project will build the capacity of the NLC –at the national and
state levels- on the Nigerian budget process in order to strengthen their skills, competencies on
participatory budgeting; thus, positioning them to act as champions of PB in Nigeria. This
approach is critical to sustaining the outcomes of this project following project completion.
The activities under this section include:
 Research: Situational analyses, baseline surveys, political economy analysis, and
stakeholder mapping will be conducted at the inception stage of this project, and results
from these critical activities will be used to adapt successful elements of the Brazilian PB
model to the unique circumstances of Nigeria.
 Stakeholder Consultation: Although Oxfam has been in conversation with the NLC over
this project, a necessary first step of this project will involve stakeholder consultations
with state chapters of the NLC, other trade unions (i.e. TUC), and professional bodies to
intimate them formally on this project and secure their buy-in. In addition, visits will also
be made to other key stakeholders such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
and relevant government agencies (i.e. Consumer Protection Council (CPC), Public
Complaints Commission (PCC) etc) to gain their support.
 Selection and Training of NLC Officials: In consultation with the leadership of the NLC,
NLC officials –together with representatives of CSOs and community mobilization
officers- who will play a key role in implementing this project and in promoting PB
beyond the project completion date will be identified for training based on pre-
established criteria.
 Capacity Building/Training: Intensive training on budget formulation, budget monitoring
and budget analysis will be provided to the NLC officials to aid their understanding of the
budget process. Furthermore, they will be trained on strategic communications,
campaigning and community mobilization to enhance their ability to carry along other
trade unions, such as the Trade Union Congress (TUC). The strategic communications

-24-
and community mobilization activities are intended to enhance the sustainability of
outcomes following project completion by equipping the NLC with the human resource
capacity to promote and continue PB-related activities in Nigeria. It is expected that this
project can be scaled up to involve other states who demonstrate commitment towards
improving PFM.
 Campaign Development: Once the capacity of the NLC has been built, Oxfam and NLC
will jointly develop a campaign for popularising PB at the national level and in the target
states.
 Plan of Action: A plan of action will be developed by Oxfam/NLC to clearly spell out the
roadmap for the campaign. This will also include who does what amongst various
stakeholders: Oxfam, NLC, NGOs, the media and professional bodies.
2.1.2 Phase 2: Citizens’ Mobilization
Phase 2 builds on achievements recorded in Phase 1. This phase focuses on building a
coalition of CSOs and citizens for promoting PB in Nigeria. The success of this project will
depend on the effective mobilisation of citizens to participate actively in the budget process and
to demand accountability. Furthermore, this phase focuses on identifying champions and
strengthening the capacity of relevant CSOs in PB. At the end of this phase, a coordination
mechanism between CSOs and the NLC will be established to drive the national discourse on
citizen-led budgeting. The proposed activities for this phase include:
 Town Hall Meetings: Following the development of the project action plan, ‘town hall
meetings’ will be held across the 6 geo political zones to which NLC state chapters,
NGOs, the media and professional bodies (COREN, NMA), regulatory institutions (i.e.
CPC, PCC) and pressure groups (i.e. NULGE) will be invited. The town hall meetings
are intended to intimate stakeholders on PB, and secure much needed buy-in for the
operationalisation of the action plan. Furthermore, through the town hall meetings,
stakeholder representatives will be identified to be part of the PB Network.
 PB Network: The proposed PB network will consist of key stakeholders, such as
representatives of the NLC, Oxfam, representatives of relevant NGOs, key community
members, the media, professional bodies (COREN, NMA etc.), pressure groups (i.e.
NULGE), and regulatory bodies (i.e. CPC, PCC). The aim of the network is to engage
and mobilize Nigerian citizens to put pressure on the government to institutionalize PB in
the budget formulation and implementation processes. Oxfam will ensure that there is
synergy with existing networks that share the same agenda with this project.
 Campaign: A formal targeted campaign to demand improved PFM and PB will be
launched. The aim of the campaign is to secure the critical mass needed to demand for
improved public finance management and the institutionalization of PB in Nigeria. The

-25-
campaigns will particularly target the National Planning Commission, the Budget Office,
the National Assembly, and one MDA that will be agreed upon at the national level. At
the state level, three states will be identified for a pilot and the campaign will target the
State’s Planning Commission,17
the Budget Office, the State Assembly and three MDAs
– Health, Education, Agriculture and Women Affairs.18
2.1.3 Phase 3: Implementing a Participatory Budget Cycle
The outcome of a successful campaign is that the government accepts to open the space for
participatory budgeting. This second phase of the project will be to support a government pilot
to practicalize and implement a PB cycle. Below are the steps for Phase 3:
Capacity Building for National and Focal State Government Officials: For PB to be successful
government has to be seen to be driving it. Therefore, the implementation of the PB Cycle must
have government on the front seat. However, as PB will be new to government, their capacity
must be built to effectively deliver it. In addition to training in PB, training will also be provided
on communication skills as government staff members also need to refine their communication
skills in order to be able to present citizens with accurate information, and also need to hear
what citizens have to say.
Communications Campaign: Following the training, PB will be launched through an extensive
communications campaign, designed to disseminate information on the PB program and
mobilize all stakeholders to participate in the activities. Oxfam/NLC will support the Nigerian
government in the design and implementation of PB campaigns that seek to get the citizens
more involved in the Nigeria budget process.
Capacity Building for Citizens and their Delegates: Participatory Budgeting depends largely on
the capacity of civil society to engage in an informed and constructive dialogue, and prepare
budgets. A capacity-building strategy that transfers skills to the relevant PB stakeholders is
essential. To ensure that citizens are prepared to bring meaningful contributions to the
budgeting process, Oxfam/NLC will carry out training for the PB network members who will act
as representatives of the various stakeholder groups. They will in turn build the capacity of their
members to be able to engage in budget dialogue.
Pre-PB Workshop: Pre town hall meetings with be organised for the PB network and other
stakeholders to train them on budget preparation. Using the previous year’s budget as a
17
The Joint Planning Board, which is the umbrella body for all the state planning commissions, serves as a useful
platform for promoting PB-related activities in the target states.
18
Decisions about target MDAs at the state level may change based on the preference of State Steering
Committees.

-26-
sample, the workshop will reformulate the budget based on real needs of the citizens and use it
as a basis for discussion during the PB workshop.
PB Prioritization Workshops: These are the workshops that practicalize PB. Here PB network
members, other members of the public who wish you and government will participate in PB
workshops, where government and citizens prioritise government spending and budget. These
workshops will take place in the FCT and focal states targeting the selected MDAs.
Budget Finalization Support: Oxfam and NLC will support the focal MDAs to finalise their
budgets based on the outcome of the prioritization workshops.
PB Validation Workshops: A second set of workshops between the PB Networks and
government will be organised where the finalised budget will be shared to ensure it fits with
prioritises identified during the prioritization workshops.
Budget Defence at the State and National Assemblies: Recognising that the legislature has a
tendency to substantially change budgets, the established PB networks will regularly
communicate with the legislature on the progress of the project. The PB networks led by the
NLC will be supported to participate in all budget defence hearings at Federal and State
Assembles, and will raise alarm on any changes that jeopardises the priorities set by citizens.
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluating (PM&E): This will consist of citizens and government
jointly monitoring budget execution and implementation of public works and projects.
Unforeseen budget cuts, poor revenue forecasts, and corruption can affect the percentage of
the budget that is actually executed. Consequently, it becomes critical that citizens and
government closely monitor budget execution to ensure that the budget is implemented
according to the law. Participatory monitoring and evaluation yields the greatest results when
stakeholders have the opportunity to discuss and plan the PM&E from the outset. To ensure
effective monitoring and evaluation, the following steps will be taken:
 M&E teams: M&E teams will be set up to monitor state and federal projects for the
MDAs targeted. The PB Network will agree which projects will be monitored based on
development priorities identified.
 Training: A series of training sessions will be conducted for the monitoring group
members to provide them with adequate skills. Training topics will include monitoring
procurement, inspection and evaluation of public works implementation etc.
 M&E: Each M&E team will be provided with a small fund to support the conduct of
quarterly M&E activities. These teams will provide reports which the PB Network will
feed back to the MDA. The NLC will raise alarm on projects that are not going according
to plan and will put pressure on the MDA to ensure compliance to the budget.

-27-
2.2 Intended Benefits of the Project
Based on the Brazilian model’s achievement, we are confident that PB will have a tangible
impact on improving the quality of life of the Nigerian people. We expect public services to
significantly improve; administrative costs substantially reduced; and improvements in
government management of resources. The realizable benefits of this project are as follows:
 More focused representation by the NLC: This project will greatly improve the NLC’s
ability to represent the Nigerian masses. The budget is the single most important
document through which government influences the lives of people. By institutionalising
PB, the NLC will ensure that the real needs of the people are being met by government.
 Increased effectiveness in budget targeting: In many cases, public budgets do not reflect
the real priorities of citizens, particularly the poor. Scarce public resources are often
spent on the wrong goods or the wrong group of beneficiaries. PB will help match citizen
needs with public resources.
 Increased revenue capacity: The PB public meetings will provide citizens and
government with an opportunity to address local tax and services fee issues which would
ultimately lead to increased revenue.
 Improved efficiency in public resource management: PBs will ensure improved budget
execution efficiency particularly in purchase of goods and contracts. Citizen group
monitoring of the procurement process will significantly increase transparency in
procurement processes, which is one of the most problematic areas of the financial
fiduciary system.
 Improved quality of public works: The creation of citizen’s budget monitoring groups will
improve the quality of public investments and infrastructure maintenance.
 Inclusion of vulnerable groups: Vulnerable groups such as poor women, people living
with disabilities and the aged do not have a strong political voice, and are often
overlooked in the allocation of budget resources. PB will help amplify their voices and
make their needs better addressed.
 Improved transparency and accountability: Often citizens do not have access to
government budget information. In some cases, citizens perceive budgets as too
complex to fully comprehend. PB will offer an opportunity for government to demystify
the budget for citizens, and to be more transparent and accountable in public resource
management.

-28-
 Promotion of social inclusion, poverty reduction, and empowerment: The traditional
budgeting process can often contribute to social exclusion and poverty due to political
interests, lobbies, rent seeking, and powerful interests. By increasing the voice of
ordinary citizens and the most vulnerable groups, PB can potentially re-direct public
investments towards basic services in poor neighbourhoods. The social learning and
civic mobilization mechanisms embedded in PB helps empower vulnerable groups to
increase their voice in budget decisions.
2.3 Project Risks/Challenges
Irrespective of the perceived benefits of this project, there are attendant risks and challenges
that may affect in the implementation of this project. These limitations may constrain the overall
impact of PB initiatives on social justice, public learning, and administrative reform. Oxfam is
aware of these risks and has identified possible mitigation measures for addressing these. The
risks and risk mitigation measures are outlined below:
Table 1: Project Risks & Mitigation Measures
s/n Risks Risk Mitigation Measures
1. Lack of government’s buy and cooperation: PB
will not be effective without government buy in
and government is often resistant to change and
maybe unwilling to truly open the budget process
to citizens.
Strong advocacy to relevant government agencies. The
involvement of NLC in this project we believe with
mitigate this risk as government appreciates the NLC’s
capacity for positive disruption. The project will also
create rewards and incentives for states and agencies
that are receptive and open to PB.
2 Lack of citizen’s buy in and cooperation: Citizens
groups are becoming fatigued from various reform
programmes that have not achieved goals and as
such, are less inclined to participate in projects
that do not have tangible results like road
construction etc
This will be mitigated against by the NLC’s involvement,
strong advocacy and the M&E component of the project
where citizens will see the direct impact of their
involvement in the budget process.
3. Failure to implement decisions and
recommendations emanating from open
discussion forums and budget tracking reports.
The success of this project hinges on securing much
needed political will at both the national and state levels.
Phase 3 of this project deals with securing the
commitment of the government –through engagement
with national and state assemblies, and government
MDAs- to the tenets of PB.
4. Outcomes achieved are short-lived. This will be addressed by developing long-term
planning. In the course of this project, a project
sustainability plan will be developed. This plan will
outline modalities for ensuring that positive
achievements are sustained long after the agreed
project completion date.
5. Excessive emphasis on local issues and local
public offices, i.e. stakeholders involved in the PB
process tend to spend too much time and energy
on the intricacies of local public policies.
To address this particular limitation, this PB project will
focus on engagement with the national and state levels
of government. Given that Nigeria operates a federal
system of government, this project’s objectives can only
be achieved if the government commitment is secured at
the national (i.e. NASS) and state levels (i.e. state
assemblies).

-29-
6. NLC Commitment: factional leadership in the NLC
presents a challenge to effective implementation
of this project.
Despite this problem, Oxfam has received assurances
from the NLC that this issue is almost being resolved.
The added interest of ITUC Africa in this project also
gives legitimacy to any commitment obtained from the
NLC for this project.
2.4 Results Framework & Administrative Structure
2.4.1 Expected Project Results (in chronological order)
 Result 1: Transparent budgeting and expenditure processes, at the federal and 3 focal
states that reflect budget priorities including gender bases budgeting identified through PB,
and serve as a binding guide to their implementation, using the prudently estimated
resources available.
Rationale: This result is intended to influence the attainment of optimum resource allocation
and management in the states leading to improved service delivery outcomes and ultimately
poverty reduction.
 Result 2: Improved awareness among the citizens about budget issues in Nigeria.
Rationale: Increase the level of public awareness about budget issues in Nigeria and
encourage the citizenry to hold public officers accountable for their actions and decisions.
 Result 3: NLC and CSOs’ capacity in budget analysis and monitoring strengthened.
Rationale: The result is to improve the capacity of the NLC and other civil society
stakeholders to understand, use, monitor and evaluate the budget to the benefit of the
communities in a manner that ensures participation, transparency and commitment to the
budget, which directly and indirectly leads to public accountability and anti-corruption.
 Result 4: Improved transparency and accountability on the part of government for the
allocation and use public financial resources.
Rationale: The key objective of public financial management in Nigeria is to make the
process more transparent, accountable and efficient such that citizens get value for their
common resources managed by government. Citizens’ capacity will be built to on public
finance management.
 Results 5: Established mechanisms for tracking government expenditure at all levels of
government.
Rationale: One of the ways of encouraging citizens’ participation in the Nigerian budget
process is improving access to budget information. Ease of access to such information is
intended to increase public interest in how public resources –particularly tax revenues- are
utilized by the government at the national, state, and local levels.

-30-
Table 2: Timelines for the Participatory Budget Project
s/n Activities Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Design of Three year annual action plans
2 Drafting of monitoring & evaluation plans
3 Identification of key stakeholders for PB project
4 Awareness visits to NLC Headquarters
5 Awareness visits to selected NLC state chapters
6 Establish Project Steering Committee
7 Design of Training Programs for NLC officials & CSOs
8 Training of NLC Officials on PB & budget tracking
9 Training of selected CSOs on PB & budget tracking
10 Institute PB operational procedures in Federal & State
NLC chapters
11 Conduct baseline survey to assess the budget analysis
and monitoring capacity of citizens, the NLC and other
identified stakeholders.
12 Design advocacy campaigns to popularize PB
13 Implementation of advocacy campaigns
14 Community mobilization in 3 states through LGs
15 Evaluation of campaign effectiveness
16 Project Progress Assessment/Mid-Term Review
17 Establish PB Networks
18 Conduct readability assessment to evaluate ease of
access to budget-related information in government MDAs
at the national and state level.
19 Conduct systematic review of PFM processes and
expenditure management in the 3 focal states.
20 Organize open PB prioritization workshops-Federal &
State
21 Organize high-level Project Steering Committee
22 Organize second PB workshop for NLC officials & CSOs
23 Organize PB validation workshops for PB networks
24 Organize Federal-level discussion forum between PB
network & representatives of the National Assembly
25 Organize state-level discussion forums involving state
assembly members, PB network & CSOs
26 Liaise with donor agencies to validate recommended
coordination mechanisms between the national & state
assemblies, i.e. through PACs
27 Secure agreement between PSC, PB networks and
legislature on appropriate frameworks for publicizing
budget-related information.
28 Central PB Project Review involving all stakeholders
29 Impact evaluation of PB project

-31-
2.4.2 Project Administrative Structure
The expected outcomes together with capacity requirements will be taken into consideration when
designing the administration structure for the PB project. A centralized organizational structure is
proposed for this project given the need to ensure that state-level activities align with the overriding
development objectives. The Project Management Unit (PMU) will be based in Abuja with Project
Support Units (PSUs) in the 3 pilot states. The PMU will closely oversee the activities of the PSUs –
including verification and approval of procurement requests; establishing fiduciary controls over the
use of funds disbursed to PSUs; and conducting field-based supervision missions to assess project
implementation progress in the target states- and ensure that their activities and annual workplans
align to the main objectives of this project. The PMU liaises directly with the NLC Headquarters
through the appointed NLC National Coordinator while the PSU liaises with the NLC state officers.
The NLC National Coordinator is largely responsible for securing ownership and buy-in in the 3 pilot
states. Figure 2 outlines the proposed organizational structure for this project:

-32-
Figure 2: Proposed Organizational Structure for the Participatory Budget Project (Core Implementation Team)
Project Management Unit (PMU)
Project Director
M&E Manager Communications
Manager
Project Coordinator
NLC Project Coordinator
Finance & Procurement
Manager
Project Manager
PSU 1
Project Manager
PSU 2
Project Manager
PSU 3
Fin. & Proc.
Officer
M&E Officer Comm. Officer
Community
Mobilization Officers
Fin. & Proc.
Officer
M&E Officer Comm. Officer
Community
Fin. & Proc.
Officer
M&E Officer
Comm.
Officer
Community
NLC State Officer 1 NLC State Officer 2 NLC State Officer 3

-33-
Based on Figure 2, the PMU will oversee the activities of the PSUs- each headed by a project
manager- in the three pilot states. In addition to the project manager, each PSU will consist of
an M&E officer, finance officer, and communications officer. For the purposes of effective
project implementation, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established to strategically
secure much needed government buy-in and ownership of this project. The PSC will consist of
the following: the PMU; representatives of the NLC headquarters; and relevant representatives
of CSOs. The PSC will meet periodically –quarterly or bi-annually- to discuss project
implementation progress and make changes where necessary to address any challenges
encountered.
2.4.3 Planning and Organisation of the Project
The project will be managed by Oxfam’s Good Governance Programme (GGP) team through a
dedicated Project Director. The Project Director will be a member of Oxfam’s GGP and will
report to the Associate Country Director of Oxfam Novib. As already established, three PSUs
will be created in 3 pilot states. Each state will have a Project Manager who will be responsible
for the deliverables for that state (see Figure 2). The GGP and the PSUs will implement the
programme on the basis of programme estimates.
The Associate Country Director, Oxfam Novib will act as project coordinator and will oversee
project implementation activities in coordination with the NLC and other relevant stakeholders.
Oxfam will provide administrative support for this project and is responsible for monitoring,
evaluation, and reporting all project-related activities. Furthermore, a Project Officer (PO) will be
appointed by the NLC at the national level and paid by the project. The role of the PO is to
ensure that the NLC participates fully in the project. This is required for the sustainability of
outcomes following project completion. Furthermore, three State Officers will also be appointed
by the NLC to coordinate its participation in the focal states. These POs -both at the national
and state levels- will support efforts to bring the government and other relevant stakeholders on
board.
A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will ensure coherence in the implementation of the
programme, assessing progress and providing advice. State-level Steering Committees (SSC)
will promote and monitor the implementation of the project at state level.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Oxfam and the NLC will be signed to
formalize the relationship and will form the basis for the following:
 Provide a partnership framework for mutual obligations.
 Specify the roles and responsibilities as well as clarify all commitments of Oxfam and the
NLC for the implementation of the project.
 Clarify the roles of and relations between the steering committees, Oxfam and the NLC.

-34-
2.4.4 Core Implementation Team
The proposed principal management mechanism for this PB project is the ‘Core Implementation
Team (CIT)’. The CIT is composed of the following personnel: project coordinator; project
director; project managers for each state, i.e. each PSU; M&E Manager and Officers;
Procurement & Finance Manager and Officers; Communication Manager and officers; NLC
national coordinator and NLC state officers. The office of the PSUs will be domiciled to the state
chapter offices of the NLC.
The CIT will be responsible for the day-to-day operational management of the project in addition
to developing strategy, operationalizing coordination between federal and state-level activities,
and project delivery. The CIT will possess the requisite expertise and experience in managing
governance projects and coordinating project administrative functions. The CIT will comprise of
the project director (who oversees the activities of the PMU team, the NLC project coordinator,
and the project managers of the three PSUs). The project director reports directly to the Oxfam
Associate Country Director who is the Project Coordinator. Each PSU is headed by the project
manager and is made up of a finance officer, a procurement officer and communications officer.
The CIT will equally be responsible for the following critical activities:
 Overall delivery of the PB project.
 Coordinating the activities of the PSUs in the following areas: design and implementation
of advocacy campaigns, i.e. advocacy and networking; developing operating modalities
for involving relevant stakeholders in project implementation, i.e. liaising with
stakeholders; and establishing mechanisms for involving government at all levels in the
implementation process.
 Assessment of project risks and opportunities.
 Evaluating and processing procurement requests, especially those emanating from the
PSUs.
 Preparing necessary reporting documents, such as M&E reports and progress reports,
for submission to funders and the PSC.
 Knowledge transfer and dissemination of project outcomes.
Task Structure for Core Implementation Team
Based on Figure 2, a hierarchical organizational structure will be used for this project. The
benefits of using this structure for this project are as follows: (i) personnel recognize defined
levels of leadership; (ii) employees narrow their field of focus to their expected deliverables; and
(iii) managers and subordinates understand how their tasks support the realization of the
overriding objective of this PB project. To enhance seamless management of project-related
activities, an indicative task design has been developed for key personnel (see Table 3). It is

-35-
necessary to note that this job design is subject to modification in response to the emerging
needs and priorities of this project.
Table 3: Task Design/Structure for the Core Implementation Team
s/n Staff Designation Responsibilities Reporting line
1 Project Coordinator i. The project coordinator is responsible for the
overall success of this project.
ii. He/She owns the project’s development
objective.
iii. Spearheads strategic meetings involving the
PSC and the head of the funding agency.
Overall head of this project.
Oxfam Novib Associate Country
Director will act in this capacity
with support from the GG Officer
2 NLC National Coordinator i. The NLC coordinator is responsible for securing
much needed buy-in from the NLC, especially at the
national level.
ii. Supervises the activities of the NLC state officers.
iii. Participates in identifying suitable NLC
representatives for training.
iv. Also contributes to the design of PB advocacy
campaigns.
v. Participates in establishing meaningful lines of
communication between the NLC and the
government, particularly the legislature.
The NLC National Coordinator
reports to the Project Director.
3 Project Director i. The Project Director is the overall operational
head for this project, i.e. coordinates the activities of
the PMU.
ii. Establishes operational policies and guidelines
for implementing project-related activities.
iii. Reviews and approves annual work plans and
procurement plans for this project.
iv. Ensures that reports are submitted to funders
and other critical stakeholders in a timely manner.
v. Works with the PMU team to ensure value-for-
money for project resource commitments
The Project Director reports
directly to the Project Coordinator.
4 Project Managers i. Responsible for managing the activities of their
respective PSUs.
ii. Ensures that activities identified in their
respective annual plans are being implemented in a
timely manner.
iii. Works with NLC state officers to secure the buy-
in of state governments and other pressure groups.
The Project Manager reports
directly to the Project Director.
5 M&E Manager i. Coordinates all M&E-related activities for this
project, both at the national and state levels, i.e.
drafting and implementing M&E plans.
ii. Coordinates field-based project supervision
missions in the 3 pilot states.
iii. Ensures that M&E reports and project progress
reports are prepared and submitted to the funder
and stakeholders in a timely manner.
iv. Coordinates data collection from the states and
analyses this to monitor project progress.
v. Organizing capacity building for state M&E
officers and community mobilization officers.
Reports directly to the Project
Director.
6 Finance Manager i. Responsible for aggregate financial management
for this project.
ii. Establishing fiduciary controls for this project.
iii. Coordinating the financial audit of PSUs’
expenditure, i.e. ensuring timely retirement of
expenditures.
iv. Preparing monthly, quarterly, and annual
Director.

-36-
financial reports for the project; securing approval
from project director before dissemination to
funders and other critical stakeholders.
7 Procurement Manager i. Establishing guidelines for preparing annual
procurement plans.
ii. Reviewing the annual procurement plans of
PSUs and securing approval for same from the
project director.
iii. Processing procurement requests for PSUs, i.e.
procurement of equipment and consultants.
Director.
8 Communications Manager i. Developing the communications strategy/plan for
this project.
ii. Coordinating the implementation of the
communication activities-as outlined in the
communications plan- at the state level.
iii. Working with consultants to design advocacy
campaigns for this project.
iv. Working with communication officers to
coordinate the activities of community mobilization
officers.
v. Coordinating the conduct of lessons-learnt
studies.
vi. Coordinating knowledge management for this
project.
Director.
2.4.5 Project Plan
A detailed project plan -outlining key activities, timelines, and M&E procedures- will be produced
and will form the blueprint for the project, i.e. Project Implementation Manual (PIM). This
document will guide project implementation processes at the state level. The PIM will contain
procedures for the following activities: M&E; financial management (i.e. fiduciary controls and
responsibilities); procurement; and communications. An overview of these activities is provided
subsequently.
State Office’s Administrative and Financial Management:
Monitoring of the financial aspects is best considered as the monitoring of a continuous
process, from consultation and engagement to follow-up of the implementation until the closure
of the engagements. Such monitoring is comparable to a general quality control of the whole
implementation process and is focused on ensuring that activities support the realization of
identified outputs and outcomes. This will be done on a monthly basis and monitoring will lead
to pro-active management. Consequently, the project will hire a full time M&E Officer who will
ensure that all tasks for all actors are executed at deadlines. S/he will be supported by State
M&E Officer will be hired for the project
Monitoring will be carried out at two levels. First at the state level (i.e. PSU), a day-to-day
internal monitoring will ensure effective and timely decision-making and accountability for
resources and achievements of results. At the operational level, monitoring will facilitate
management and control. It will include analysis of, for example, activity volumes, timetables,

-37-
deadlines, costs, progress, problems, and bottlenecks. Secondly, monitoring will be carried out
by Oxfam in order to facilitate the overall strategic management decisions on an informed way
at key steps of the project cycle, contract management, and providing informed and useful
reporting on the project portfolio. If necessary, the project team must act proactively and foresee
some active interventions, advice and/or other specific forms of support. This approach is
focussed on results, where the emphasis will be on the quality or accuracy of the task executed.
Quality Control:
The internal control is expected (a) to ensure the efficient administrative functioning for the
programme its technical components and (b) to obtain a performing and efficient implementation
of the programme activities. The control system will be reactive and include aspects covering
the implementation of the Internal Control Standards, legality and regularity of the operations,
findings of internal/external audit reports and their follow-up, and enhancements once lessons
learned.
Main control activities will focus on (a) the fine tuning of the technical management tools to
support a streamlined execution of the programme and (b) the programme-management service
covering all non-technical tasks of other components related to: (1) the administrative
management, supervision of implementation procedures; communication and visibility; etc and
(2) the financial management.
Procurement:
Procurement under this project will be governed by a procurement policy that involves inputs
from the procurement systems of the funder and Oxfam Novib. This procurement policy will be
developed at the inception stage of this project and will outline rules and procedures for the
following: (i) the procurement of goods and works; and (ii) the use of consultants. The policy will
also guide the PMU in processing requests emanating from the PSUs. Procurement for this
project will be conducted according the following principles:
i. To ensure value-for-money, all procurement requests emanating from the PSUs will
be processed by the PMU. This centralized approach reduces operational risks for
this project and guarantees effective supplier management.
ii. Local service contracts will be imprest commitments. Competition and transparency
will be assured at all stages of the contract process.
iii. Ensuring that solicitations are designed with clearly drafted requirements, properly-
aligned pricing and scoring structures, and well-tailored legal agreements.
iv. In anticipation of the use of consultants for this project, the quality and cost-based
selection method (QCBS) will be used to select and engage consultants to carry out
some of the technical activities for this project (see Annex A).

-38-
v. Complete tender dossiers will be prepared, including all documents for evaluation
and contracting before launching of the tenders. The PMU will review and formally
approve documents before launching. The review process will entail ensuring that
proper material disclosure protocols are built into document drafting and tendering
processes to mitigate against project delays and supplier extra-cost claims.
vi. Establishing performance management systems for tracking the performance of
suppliers and contractors. These systems will be used for the procurement of
equipment and consultants throughout the duration of this project.
Financial Management and Financial Audits:
At the inception stage of this project, a financial management policy for this will be developed to
ensure that all financial transactions associated with this project are accounted for and recorded
using appropriate accounting systems. Oxfam will assume responsibility for proper and secure
maintenance of all accounting documents and records for the funder. The financial policy will
outline the fiduciary controls established for this project. Together with fiduciary controls,
formats and checklists for the verification of the expenditures of PSUs will be created at the
inception stage of this project. The financial policy for this project –also to be prepared at the
inception stage- will guide the processing of all financial transactions for this project.
Moreover, a more general format and checklist for an internal auditing will be used during field-
based supervision missions by the Finance Manager to PSUs. The Finance Manager –
domiciled to the PMU- will conduct these internal audits (see Table 2). Such internal audits will
check basic financial data (bank balance, amount in cash etc.) and the presence of up-to-date
documents (inputs made in the accountancy, perpetual inventory updated, expense retirements,
list of contracts and advances updated etc.). The Finance Manager will prepare monthly,
quarterly, and annual financial statements for this project and submit same to the funder. The
annual financial statements for this project will be subject to further audit and certification by a
qualified external auditor. To enhance accountability and transparency, the PSC will provide
much needed oversight of the utilization of financial resources for this project. Overall, the
accounting standards for this project will be guided by the following principles:
 Full accountability of all financial inputs committed to this project;
 A true and fair view of the financial position and financial performance presented by the
financial statements;
 Preparation of financial statements that contain full disclosure of all material information
and will be accompanied by supplementary notes to explain or qualify various accounts;
 Full disclosure of the accounting principles and financial policies adopted by Oxfam
Novib as well as disclosure of any subsequent changes in either existing accounting

-39-
practices or financial policies should be included in the notes to the financial statement;
and
 Annual financial statements will be audited and certified by an independent and qualified
auditor as a fair presentation of this project’s financial position.
Project Monitoring & Evaluation:
Participatory M&E will be used to systematically collect and periodically analyse information that
has been chosen and documented by the M&E personnel with inputs from the NLC and relevant
CSOs. This approach will provide information during the life of the project, so that adjustments
and modifications can be made if necessary. Data for this project will be collected on a monthly,
quarterly and annual basis.
For this project, monitoring will be used to track and compare actual project performance
against set targets to detect any departure from the planned course of action. It will also be
used to indicate whether the inputs are being delivered in the right quantities and at the right
time, whether the activities are being implemented as planned, on schedule and within the
budget limits; and the output targets are being achieved. Furthermore, monitoring will be used
to indicate factors causing implementation delays or unexpected results. Feedbacks from the
findings will be channelled to the CIT to take necessary action. The review and analysis of the
feedback will form the evaluation component of the M&E system which also includes, when
needed, management interventions in the implementation activities or modification of the
original implementation plan.
M&E System: The M&E team will work to develop a comprehensive M&E plan for this project.
They will also be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the System at the national
and state Levels. Annex A outlines the indicative log-frame instrument for this project. The
contents of this instrument will be responsive to emerging priorities for this project. The
proposed plan will include the basic components of a good M&E System:
 Clear statements of measurable objectives for the programme.
 A structured set of indicators which must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic and Timely).
 Structured formats and rules for reporting on the above.
(the tracking of the evolution of these objectives and indicators through this reporting process
being the expected output of the system).

Oxfam NLC Proposal-Final Document

Oxfam NLC Proposal-Final Document

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Oxfam NLC Proposal-Final Document

Similar to Oxfam NLC Proposal-Final Document (20)

More from Gerald Ogoko

More from Gerald Ogoko (14)

Oxfam NLC Proposal-Final Document