CASE STUDIES ON NEEDS AND SEEDS

Introduction NEEDS / SEEDS / LEEDS is Nigerias plan for prosperity It is also a plan for attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Given the wide range of issues addressed by NEEDS and SEEDS and the fact that its programmes represent, in most cases, a radical departure from what obtained in the past, NEEDS / SEEDS is also a reform programme Its success also requires coordination at all the three tiers of government in the country as well as by international and local partners. As a result of these factors, there is a need for careful preparation and handling of all stages of the NEEDS / SEEDS / LEEDS process right from planning through to implementation stages The broad procedural framework for NEEDS / SEEDS / LEEDS is based on the standard strategic planning cycle. This involves five interrelated stages of Setting Targets > Developing Strategies > Allocating Resources > Implementation > Monitoring and Evaluation It has often been said that Nigerias problem is not that of formulating good plans, but that of implementing them. In the case of NEEDS / SEEDS / LEEDS, virtually all the stages of the cycle are likely to pose their challenges and problems This session provides some case studies related to certain elements of the NEEDS / SEEDS programme. The case studies to be discussed are to highlight challenges, issues, and problems as well as learn lessons for the implementation of the development strategy Case I: Public Service Delivery Reforms under NEEDS Background / The Problem The problem with service delivery in Nigeria was articulated by the President himself in his address to the inaugural session of the National Assembly. According to Mr. President: Public offices are the shopping floors for government business. Regrettably, Nigerians have for too long been feeling short-changed by the quality of public service delivery by which decisions are not made without undue outside influence, and files do not move without being pushed with inducements. Our public offices have for too long been showcases for the combined evils of inefficiency and corruption, whilst being impediments to effective implementation of government policies. Enunciating further, the President remarked as follows:

Under the popular caption of the Nigerian way, many Nigerians have grown accustomed to regarding public service as something you battle for, and you cannot succeed unless you know someone inside the system So how did our service delivery degrade into the present circumstances, when public servants, if they serve you at all, do so as a favour, or at a price? How and when did the so-called, Nigerian way of doing things become the norm? Many Nigerians would claim to know the answer. And it is that the public servants have to chop, and chopping is given higher priority than the duty to deliver service. With this attitude, the public servants cannot allow the system to become efficient, where the criteria for efficiency are based on satisfaction of the citizens. Hence, the vicious circle in order to get through the inefficient system, one has to bribe ones way, yet the public officials, who operate that system, make sure it stays inefficient so that they can continue to collect toll. Meanwhile, citizens are no longer people with the rights to be served. And, when things go wrong, as they invariably do, then there is no recourse. Highlights of Reform Measures

December 2003: Commisiioning of Service Delivery Report A report was commissioned to review Service Delivery in Nigeria: examine institutional environment for service delivery; reflect on peoples lives and experiences; and draw roadmap for a Service Delivery Programme. February 2004: Publication of Service Delivery In Nigeria: A Roadmap (The Wendy Thomson Report) The Reports conclusions and recommendations include: Services are not serving people: they are inaccessible, poor in quality and indifferent to customer needs. Public confidence is poor, and institutional arrangements are confusing and wasteful. A far-reaching transformation of Nigerian society through a Service Delivery Programme as a step in the process of moving to a government that is more in touch with the people. The Service Delivery Programme should: create citizens and customers demand; instill higher expectations of public services; communicate service entitlements and rights, publish information about performance. Redesign the services around customer requirements; Success of the Programme will require committed leadership from the top; Government should demonstrate leadership commitment with a public declaration about Service Delivery.

March 2004: Special Presidential Retreat to deliberate on the Report 21 March 2004: SERVICOM is born
Concluding Special Presidential Retreat On Service Delivery in Nigeria, the President and the Ministers entered into a SERVICE COMPACT WITH ALL NIGERIANS (SERVICOM) By SERVICOM, it was also agreed that all Ministries, Parastatals and Agencies and all other Government Departments will prepare and publish, not later than the FIRST DAY OF JULY 2004, SERVICOM CHARTERS whose provisions will include: quality services designed around customers requirements; set out citizens entitlements in ways they can readily understand; list of fees payable and prohibit illegal demands; commitment to provision of services within realistic time-frames; specify officials to whom complaints may be addressed; publish these details in conspicuous places accessible to the public ; conduct and publish surveys of customer satisfaction. SERVICOM CHARTERS are the operational day-to-day implementation of SERVICOM to be displayed by every Government Department. They are promises upon which Customers can expect quality Service Delivery; demand their rights to good service; have recourse when service delivery fails; are actively involved in the Service Delivery Programme. A good SERVICOM CHARTER should promise to break the twin evils of corruption and inefficiency. The SERVICOM Office Established within the Presidency to operationalise Government commitments under SERVICOM: Coordinates formulation and operation of SERVICOM Charters. Monitors and reports progress and performance under SERVICOM obligations; Carries out surveys of services and customer satisfaction. Establishment of Ministerial Servicom Units (MSUs) The Federal Executive Council resolved that MSU are to be established. A direction to that effect was issued by the SGF, Chief Ufot Ekaette on March 10, 2005. The SERVICOM Unit in a Ministry, Department or Agency (MDA) is to be headed by a Deputy Director, who is to serve as the Nodal Officer and the Head of the Unit. The Nodal Officer reports directly to the Minister through the Permanent Secretary without any Departmental mediation in the Ministry. In the case of the ExtraMinisterial Department or the Parastatal, the Nodal Officer is to report directly to the Chief Executive. The MSU, EMDSU or PSU should have Staff compliment that would be in-charge of the following critical desks:1. Charter Formulation, implementation and Review 2. Customer Relations/Grievance Redress Mechanism 3. Service Improvement

4. Support Staff i.e. Data Processing Officer and Assistants for 1-3 above. The staff of the MSU is to comprise of: Nodal Officers: To supervise the activities of the Staff of the Unit; to oversee the day to day running of the Unit Charter Desk Officer: To guide the Departments and other Service Frontlines on Charter formulation; to liaise with the Stakeholders for their input while formulating the MDAs Charters; to vet the MDAs Charters to ensure conformity with SERVICOM approved guidelines Customer Relations / Complaints Desk Officers: To oversee the reception area of the MDA; to coordinate, produce and publicize the Customer care policy of the MDA Service Improvement Desk Officers: To disseminate best practices and other tips on Service Delivery Improvement within the MDA; to periodically conduct Market Research with a view to identifying Customer needs and Expectations of the MDAs Services SERVICOM Index: The SERVICOM Office is supposed to calculate a SERVICOM Index for MDAs as a yardstick for measuring the quality of service as delivered by Government through its various Ministries, departments, parastatals and agencies. Service Improvement Plan MDAs are also expected to develop a Service Improvement Plan (SIP) that contains the details of all activities to be carried out, by indicating time and resources required in order to achieve new levels of performance and progress in line with the mission and vision of the Organisation. Issues for Discussion Positives Problem and causes well identified. The cause (I must chop syndrome being addressed by other aspects of reforms anticorruption; increases in wages and emoluments) Policy based on research / study Commitment shown from the topmost leadership (but how do we get the same commitment to be translated to lower levels of leadership, such as heads of MDAs?) Use of Service Charters and Service Improvement Plans help to make service delivery targets SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). Negatives and Questions Implementation still seems to fall far below expectations. How many MDAs and parastatals have prepared Service Charters?

Are the Service Charters publicized as expected? Do customers have access to and know about these charters? Non-existence of MSUs. The implementation of such as well as that of Charter preparation should have a specific time frame. Where MSUs exist, are they structured as intended? Lack of a system of enforcement, rewards and sanctions. Where it exists, is it being implemented? In light of non-compliance with MSU directive, how good is the idea of centralization of SERVICOM Office. What are the implications for effective implementation? Weak monitoring and evaluation How can we ensure that reforms do not lose steam? Are the funds needed for effective service delivery been provided to MDAs?

Case II: Promoting Agriculture in Osun SEEDS OSUN SEEDS SECTORAL POLICY REFORMS, Agriculture and Natural Resources STRATEGIES AND TARGETS:

Osun State is predominantly an agrarian society with about 70% of the population directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture and related occupations. There are many sub-sectors in agriculture but these have been condensed and treated under four sub-sectors in this document viz: Crops, Livestock, Fisheries and Forestry. Crops Production The major arable crops in Osun State include maize, cassava, rice and cowpea while major tree crops are cocoa, oil-palm, citrus and cashew. Cultivation of these crops are rain fed thus subjecting them to the vagaries of the weather, with the result of becoming susceptible to moisture stress.

Problems of the Sub-Sector The identified problems of the crops production sub-sector include the following inter alia: (I) poor genetic quality of planting materials which is responsible for low performance by the crops; (ii) inadequacy of farm mechanization opportunities/services to farmers; (iii) inadequate or poor distribution of rainfall which allows for a single cropping season;

(iv) inadequate financial resources of farmers to procure adequate quantity of modern inputs e. g. fertilizers, chemicals etc.; (v) poor agricultural technology which is responsible for inability to process and preserve what is produced; (vi) lack of irrigation facilities to allow for all year round crop production; and (vii) land tenure system. Policy Reforms and Strategies The proposed policy reforms and strategies for this sub-sector are: (i) closer collaboration with Universities and Research Institutes to facilitate introduction of high yielding varieties of crops to farmers; (ii) recruitment of adequate number of agricultural extension staff to disseminate agricultural knowledge and information to farmers; (iii) intensification of on-farm adaptive research to develop more productive farming system and practices; (iv) provision of farm mechanization services to farmers; (v) improved access of genuine farmers to agricultural credit; (vi) provision of warehouse for buffer stock storage of agricultural produce; (vii) collaborating with private sector organizations in setting up agro processing and storage facilities; (viii) provision of irrigation facilities e.g. earth dams, water pumps, canals etc.; (ix) closer collaboration with the Farmers' Congress for efficient and effective extension services; while the activities of the farmers' congress will be reasonably supported by government with a view to moving agriculture to enviable heights; (x) making land available to genuine farmers in farm settlements or acquisition of new holdings; (xi) reorganization of various farmers associations into cooperatives to have a better working relationship in the State; (xii) rehabilitation of old and moribund tree crops; (xiii) introducing youths to agriculture through Agriculture in Schools, formation of Young Farmers Club and Osun State Agricultural Youth Empowerment Programme (OSAYEP); (xiv) promotion of off-farm employment and income-generating activities in snailery, bee keeping backyard, fadama farming or vegetables gardening; (xv) improved access of farmers to locally developed (low cost) agricultural production and processing technologies;

(xvi) purchase of new bulldozers for Osun State Agricultural Development Corporation (OSSADEC) for increased land clearing for farming; (xvii) resuscitation of all the farm services centres across the state in order to facilitate smooth, effective and efficient repairs and servicing of tractors distributed across the state; (xviii) ensuring efficient and effective distribution of fertilizers and other farm inputs. TARGETS OF THE PROPOSED REFORMS FOR CROPS PRODUCTION No Programme TARGETS 2004 2005 2006 2007 1. Farm Settlement 8 1 1 2. Earth dams 3 3 2 3. Agricultural Engineers Staff 3 3 3 4. Agricultural Extension Staff 68 64 62 62 5. Extension Officer/Farmer 1:3,764 1:1,000 1:1,000 ratio 6. Budders (Tree Crops) 20 20 20 7. Mechanisation Staff 38 20 15 15 8. Loan Officers 20 6 6 6 9. Engineering Workshop 1 1 1 10. Land Clearing Equipment 1 1 1 11. Implement Shed 3 3 3 12. Low Loaders 1 1 1 13. Additional Land put under 5% 5% 5% cultivation in the State 14. Fuel dump 1 15. Warehouse 1 1 1 16. Maize 1.2 tonnes/ha 3 tonnes/ha 17. Cassava 10 tonnes/ha 15 tonnes/ha 18. Rice 1.5 tonnes/ha 3.0 tonnes/ha 19. Cowpea 0.45 1.0 tonnes/ha . tonnes/ha 20.. Cocoa 1.0 tonnes/ha 1.0 tonnes/ha 21. Oil Palm 5 tonnes/ha 15-18 tonnes/ha 22. Citrus 2,000 5,000 fruits/ha 3,000 fruits/ha 23. Cashew 1.2 tones/ha 3 tonnes/ ha Note: ha means hectare Issues for Discussion Are strategies well articulated to aid implementation? Are the targets SMART?

Need for links with other reform components e.g solving problem 1 through strategy 1 above may require complementary initiatives in the education sector strategy Are responsibilities for meeting targets clearly defined? Is financing adequately dealt with? Issues and Lessons in NEEDS / SEEDS / LEEDS Implementation Given that the reforms cover a wide-range of areas there is a need to be careful to maintain policy coherency as much as possible. There is a possibility of contradictory policies There may be a need to define a clear-cut scope for the reforms to be carried out. How can we ensure reforms do not lose steam? There may be a need for legislative backing in several reform areas. One also needs to avoid overcentralization of activities where possible. Need for proper sequencing and phasing of reform measures. At times this, as much as possible should be clearly stated at the outset to avoid problems in implementation (e.g. the monetization policy which the former Minister of Finance once remarked was not well planned, i.e in terms of implementation) Planning and implementation will require adequate, timely and reliable data. How strong are statistical systems, particularly at the lower levels of government?

Salient

Conclusion It is quite clear that the NEEDS/SEEDS/LEEDS process poses considerable challenges to all levels of government and other stakeholders in Nigeria. Implementation cannot be expected to be easy, but it should be seen and treated as a learning and continuous process. At the same time, this should not be used as an excuse for improper planning or failure to implement on time. As the nation enters into a second phase of NEEDS / SEEDS implementation, the question of sustenance of reforms takes on added importance while new challenges are also emerging. Ensuring sustenance requires that the process be made truly participatory so that it will actually be a reflection of the aspirations and goals of the people, which are more constant, rather than a political tool that changes with political regimes.