TA Component Implementing Agencies and Partners

1.1 The TA Component aims to deliver activities as much as possible using in-country institutions in order to build the capacity of these institutions for sustainability. Accordingly, the following national-level institutions will serve as implementing agencies who will directly receive TA component funds from the Bank[1]: (i) Federal Ministry of Finance Home Finance department as the Program Coordination Unit (PCU); (ii) the Public Service Institute of Nigeria (PSIN); (iii) the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation in the Federal Ministry of Justice (activities to be led by the OGP Secretariat housed in this Office) (OGP); and (iv) the debt management office (DMO). The following national institutions will be implementing partners for the TA component, receiving TA component funds through the PCU: (i) Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation (OAUGF); and (ii) the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) engaged as a project management firm by the PCU. Table 6 summarizes the implementing agencies and partners for each of the TA sub-components.

Table 6: Implementing Agencies and Partners

TA Sub-Component Objective Implementing Agencies and Partners
Strengthening State Government Systems and Capacities (Indicative amount: $35m) Build capacity of states to implement the FSP and OGP, specifically to achieve the Eligibility Criteria and DLIs/DLRs of the PforR component 1.                  Implementing Agencies:

•      PCU (coordination role)

•      PSIN

•      OGP

•      DMO

2.                   

3.                  Implementing Partners working through the PCU:

•      OAuGF

•      NGF (hired as a project management firm by the PCU)

Strengthening Program Coordination and Verification of Results

(Indicative amount: $13m)

4.                  Support establishment of an effective Program Coordination Unit (PCU)

Support robust and credible annual performance assessments by the IVA

•      Implementing Agency: PCU

•      Implementing Partners working through the PCU: OAuGF

5.                   

Strengthening Policy Coordination between Federal and State Governments

(Indicative amount: $2m)

Strengthen federal-state fiscal policy coordination mechanisms •      Implementing Agency: PCU

•      Implementing Partners working through the PCU: to be determined post program effectiveness

1.2.  Sub-Component One: Strengthening State Government Systems and Capacities: Strategic Framework and Implementing Agencies and Partners

Strategic Framework: The design of the capacity support program to states is based on the findings of the assessment of the implementation of the FSP carried out by the FMoF and NGF, previous assessments of state fiscal and debt management capacity, as well as on the feedback received during the consultation with the state governments. The implementing agencies and partners who will design and deliver the capacity building activities were selected considering their institutional mandate, technical expertise and experience in capacity building of state governments in the four result areas of the Program. Where appropriate, these implementing entities will collaborate with other public and private local and regional training institutions to draw on their expertise and help them scale up the capacity building activities. Table 7 below summarizes the focus areas (EC and DLIs) and modalities of support for each implementing agency and partner. Table 8 provides further details of the content areas to be covered and the target state institution for each DLI.

The Annual Performance Assessment Guidelines and the Verification Protocols

The states achievement of the EC and DLRs will be assessed state-by-state on a binary basis: achieved/pass or not achieved/fail. The assessment will be done annually by an independent verification agent (IVA) through the annual performance assessments (APAs) using the DLI Verification Protocols. The latest official full set of APA Guidelines and DLI Verification Protocols, which apply to all the states, are contained in Annex 2. The section below summarizes key points from the guidelines and protocols

It is envisaged that the APA guidelines and DLI Verification Protocols may need to be refined during program implementation to address systemic issues encountered in conducting the APAs. Formal revisions should be proposed by the IVA or PCU and submitted to the World Bank for review and no objection and disseminated immediately to all the states before the start of the calendar/fiscal year in which the revised guidelines and protocols will be applied.

The DLI Verification Protocols

The verification protocol for the EC and each DLR comprise of: 1) the detailed definition/description of the DLR, including definitions of key terms; 2) the state data source to be used by the IVA for assessing DLR achievement; 3) the procedure IVA will use to assess whether the state has achieved (pass) or not achieved (fail) the EC or DLR. It is important to note the following:

  • The detailed definition/description of the DLR in the verification protocol is not meant to be comprehensive on what a law contains or how a system should function. Rather, it describes the minimum content/function/performance expected to achieve the DLR.
  • The data source and data requirements of the IVA are not recorded exhaustively within this protocol. The IVA reserves the right to request for any additional information or data from states that may be required to form an opinion.
  • The procedures IVA will use to assess states’ achievement of the DLRs are not recorded exhaustively within this protocol. The IVA reserves the right to undertake additional procedures or amend the procedures in order to form an opinion.

The APA guidelines

  1. Timing and Definitions
  • The 2018 Annual Performance Assessment (APA) refers to the APA assessing states’ performance against DLRs for Year 1-2018 i.e. 2018 is the year under assessment. The 2018 APA will take place in 2019. The 2019 APA refers to states’ performance against DLRs for Year 2/2019 i.e. 2019 is the year under assessment and will take place in 2020 and so on.
  • “Year” refers to the fiscal year (unless stated otherwise), which is the same as the calendar year running from 1st January to 31st December. “Year-end” refers to 31st December.
  • The proposed timing of the APAs are shown in the below table. For Year 1/2018, the APA will be conducted post program effectiveness. For year 4/2021, the APA will be conducted April to July 2022 so that audited financial statements of FY21 form the basis of the DLR assessment.

Table 4: PforR Annual Cycle

Program Evaluation and Disbursements Year 1/2018 Year 2/2019 Year 3/2020 Year 4/2021
Performance period being assessed/year under assessment Jan-Dec 18 Jan-Dec 19 Jan-Dec 20 Jan-Dec 21
Interim Annual Performance Assessment period for the IVA and external audit firm Jun-Aug 19 Jan-Apr 20 Jan-Apr 21 n/a
Interim Verification report submitted by the IVA to the PCU and WB Aug-19 May-20 May-21 n/a
Disbursement of performance-based grants to states Sep-19 Jun-20 Jun-21 Oct-22
Final Annual Performance Assessment period for the IVA and external audit firm Sep-Oct 19 Sep-Oct 20 Aug-Sep 21 July-Aug 22
Final Verification report submitted by the IVA to the PCU and WB Nov 19 Nov 20 Oct 21 Sep 22
  1. The APAs are conducted independently of each othere. the assessment of states’ performance against the DLRs are not linked to the previous year’s performance but will be assessed anew. For example, it is possible for a state fail in year 1, pass in year 2 and 3, and fail in year 4 on the same DLR.
  2. Templates: The PCU and other implementing agencies and partners plan to disseminate several guidelines/templates/tools for states as part of the capacity building to states to support them to achieve several of the DLRs. These include templates for a Citizen’s Budget, State Debt Sustainability Analysis etc. The templates are also shared with the IVA. While states are encouraged to apply these templates to facilitate assessment of the level of achievement of each DLR, states are not obligated to use the templates. In those cases, the IVA assessment should be guided by the definition/description of the DLR contained in the verification protocol.
  1. Online Publication on state official website(s): Several of the DLRs require online publication on a state official website(s):
  • DLRs which require things to be “published” means that at a minimum they are published online on an official state website or state web portal.
  • State official website(s) include the website of the State Government, the website of the Office of the Auditor-General for States, the website of relevant State Ministries such as Finance, Budgets and Economic Planning, or the website of the State House of Assembly.
  • All information required to be published on the states’ official website(s) by certain dates are to also remain on the website indefinitely. This will be checked periodically (at least quarterly) by the IVA during the program duration.
  • All information placed on websites by the states should be timestamped, to show the date and time of publication.
  • All information required to be published on the states’ websites must be well sign-posted and easy for visitors to the websites to find. Links to these online publications and databases must be clearly identifiable on the home pages of each website. This is particularly important for DLI #2 strengthening citizens engagement in the budget process.
  • For all evidence to be downloaded from the state official website(s), the states are to inform IVA of the link and the specific webpages.
  1. Use of interim/unaudited year-end figures:
  • In years 1-3 i.e. for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 APAs, some DLRs will be assessed based on interim/unaudited year-end figures provided by the States’ Accountant General’s Office. Those DLRs will be reassessed using published audited figures during the next APA. If the updated results (pass/fail) are different based on the audited balances, any amounts due to the States at the end of the subsequent APA will be increased or decreased accordingly to reflect the updated results.
  • In year 4 i.e. 2021 APA, those DLRs which were assessed on interim/unaudited year-end figures will be assessed using published audited figures as there is no further APA and subsequent disbursements where adjustments can be made.
  1. Treatment of cash and accrual accounting:
  • States using cash accounting will be expected to produce annual and year-end figures on a cash basis. States that have moved to accrual accounting will be expected to produce annual and year-end figures on an accrual basis.
  • Where a state provides interim and audited financial statements and reports that are prepared on an accrual basis, the IVA will conduct its calculations and analysis on the basis of the accrued balances and not on the basis of cash flows. All accrued balances included within the year-end figures submitted to the IVA will be validated separately by the IVA after the year end to confirm they were appropriate. Where a state moves from cash to accrual accounting during the Program, the IVA’s comparative analysis will apply the cash position for the first year of accrual accounting, and then apply the accrual position in the subsequent years.

[1] Implementing agencies will have designated accounts under the Program in which the Bank will disburse directly into. Implementing partners will not have designated accounts but will instead receive funds through the PCU.