Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process
by the Government of the Republic of Niger
Mission Report
v0.1 - April 28, 2009
Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process
by the Government of the Republic of Niger
Title
Responsible Partners
Creator
Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process by the Government of the Republic of Niger
– Mission Report
Ministry of the Economy and Finance – General Directorate for the Assessment of
Development Policies
Secretariat of OECD/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Joint Venture on
Managing for Development Results (JV MfDR)
UNDP Niger – Good Governance Program
CAP-Scan Team
Contributors
Subject (Taxonomy)
Evaluation – Capacities – MfDR – GRD (French for MfDR)
Date of Approval
Audience
CAP-Scan participants, Ministries and Institutions, and Partners
List of versions
Version
Date of revision
0.1
28 April 2008
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Author(s)
Boureima Gado
Samer Hachem
Summary of revisions
First version, distributed to the CAP-Scan Team and the
Ministry of the Economy and Finance
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Summary
1.1 Approach and participation
1.2 Main outcomes
2 The CAP-Scan process in Niger
3 Methodology and outcomes
3.1 General approach
3.2 Preparatory phase: Scope and adaptation of methodology
and tools
3.2.1 Scope
3.2.2 Readjustment of the analytical matrix
3.2.3 Definition of roles and responsibilities
3.3 Workshop methodology and outcomes
3.3.1 Self-assessment
3.3.2 Determination of priorities
3.3.3 Preparation of the action plan
4. Dissemination and follow-up
4.1 Communication strategy
4.2 Monitoring mechanism
4.3 Information sharing for future CAP-Scan exercises
5 Subsequent steps
6 Evaluation of the CAP-Scan mission
7 Annexes
7.1 The CAP-Scan matrix
7.2 Definition of capacity-building stages
7.3 Summary of meetings and activities
7.4 List of CAP-Scan participants
7.5 CAP-Scan Journal
7.6 Correspondence between CAP-Scan and other frameworks
and documents
7.7 Documents considered
7.7.1 National planning
7.7.2 Studies and analyses
7.7.3 Context documents
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
4
4
5
9
10
10
11
11
11
14
15
15
19
19
22
26
28
29
30
31
33
34
37
38
39
46
62
68
68
68
68
Page 3
Report on the Implementation of the CAP-Scan Process by the Government of
the Republic of Niger – March-April, 2009
1
1.1
Summary
Approach and Participation
CAP-Scan is an analytical framework and a participatory process for assessing
and building Managing for Development Results (MfDR) capacities.1
Basically, CAP-Scan is a self-assessment exercise, through which a group of senior
civil servants evaluate country capacities in relation to the following five MfDR pillars:





Leadership
Monitoring and Evaluation
Accountability and Partnerships
Planning and Budgeting
Statistical Data Processing
The CAP-Scan matrix provides a breakdown of the above pillars into evaluation
criteria or dimensions.2 Self-assessment consists in rating progress on a continuous
capacity-building scale, divided into the following four major development stages:3




Awareness
Experimentation
Transition
Sustainable Implementation
The CAP-Scan end result consists of the identification of priorities, based on selfassessment, and the formulation of a specific action plan focused on those priorities.
The implementation of CAP-Scan in Niger is part of the Government's ongoing
efforts to put MfDR into practice, and in particular, to set up within the various
Ministries units responsible for planning and evaluation, with a view to adapting the
Accelerated Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012 (ADPRS). Niger is
one of the countries that have established a national Community of MfDR Practitioners
(CoP). UNDP Niger has provided logistical and technical support for the implementation
of CAP-Scan through the Support/Guidance Team for Governance (EACG) in the
framework of the UNDP Good-Governance Program.
1
In full: "Managing for Development Results Capacity Scan."
The matrix is presented in Annex A.
3
The stages are described in Annex B.
2
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 4
In a broader context, the implementation of the CAP-Scan process in Niger is part of the
pilot phase launched in Mauritania in July 2008.
The following Ministries and Institutions were directly involved in the CAP-Scan
process:












Ministry of Public Health (MSP)
Ministry of Education (MEN)
Ministry of the Economy and Finance(MEF)
Ministry of Civil Service and Labor (MFP/T)
Ministry of Regional Planning and Community Development (MAT/DC)
Ministry of the Environment and Desertification Control (ME/LCD)
Ministry of Agricultural Development (MDA)
Ministry of Water Supply (MH)
Ministry of Livestock Breeding and Industries (ME/IA)
Ministry of Public Works (MEQ)
Poverty Reduction Strategy Permanent Secretariat (PS/PRS)
National Institute of Statistics (INS)
The following bodies and technical and financial partners (TFPs) were invited to
participate in the workshops:






High Commission for State Modernization (HCME)
Development Analysis and Forecasting Unit (CAPED)
Program for Good Governance and Better Shared Growth (PBG/CMR)
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
World Bank
UNDP
This report is the outcome of the contributions of all CAP-Scan participants,
whom the CAP-Scan Team would like to thank for their time and high-quality
interventions in the discussions.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 5
1.2
Main Outcomes
The first CAP-Scan outcome, formulated at the end of the first workshop day, is a
self-assessment of MfDR capacities. The following chart recapitulates that selfassessment with respect to the five MfDR pillars, adapted to Niger’s context:
Average per pillar
Leadership
Evaluation & Monitoring
Accountability & Partnerships
avr- 09
Planning & Budgeting
Statistical Capacity
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
The first CAP-Scan outcome is summarized in the above chart, which shows that pillar
averages range between 1.50 and 2.50, with an overall average slightly over 2. On the
whole, these figures reflect MfDR capacities between the phases of experimentation
and transition. At that stage, although still viewed as isolated efforts, capacity-building
initiatives begin to be organized on a broader basis and to bring about the first changes.
Progress seems to have been most substantial in relation to the pillars
"Accountability and Partnerships" (including, for instance, the dimension "Parliament's
role in oversight of Government action") and "Statistical Data Processing" (including, for
instance, the dimension "Statistics strategy and plan") and weakest in relation to the
pillar "Planning and Budgeting" (focused on the budgeting process and its links to
planning and the results-based approach).
The above analysis is developed further in Section 3 below ("Methodology and
Outcomes"), where outcomes are detailed by dimension.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 6
The second CAP-Scan outcome, reached through self-evaluation by multi-criteria
analysis based on dimensions, is the identification of dimensions for which measures for
improving MfDR capacities should be taken as a matter of priority. In the afternoon of
the second day of the final workshop, a proposal specifying priority dimensions was
presented to the Secretaries General (SGs), whose observations were noted and
incorporated.
The following priority dimensions were identified:

"Leadership" pillar
o Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the
Administration
o Integration of the decentralization dimension
o Human resources management

"Monitoring and Evaluation" pillar
o System for measuring user satisfaction
o Administration performance geared to development results

"Planning and Budgeting" pillar
o Budget preparation based on objectives and results
The third CAP-Scan outcome consists in an action plan addressing the above
priorities with a view to building MfDR capacities within a time horizon of six months to
a year. This action plan was drawn up on the third day of the final workshop and is
detailed in Section 3 below ("Methodology and Outcomes").
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 7
2
The CAP-Scan process in Niger
The implementation of CAP-Scan in Niger is part of the Government's ongoing efforts to
put MfDR into practice, and in particular, to set up within the various Ministries units
responsible for planning and evaluation, with a view to adapting the Accelerated
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012 (ADPRS). Niger is one of the
countries that have established a national Community of MfDR Practitioners (CoP).
UNDP Niger has provided logistical and technical support for the implementation of
CAP-Scan through the Support/Guidance Team for Governance (EACG) in the framework
of the UNDP Good-Governance Program.
In a broader context, the implementation of the CAP-Scan process in Niger is
part of the pilot phase launched in Mauritania in July 2008.
The following Ministries and Institutions were directly involved in the CAP-Scan
process:












Ministry of Public Health (MSP)
Ministry of Education (MEN)
Ministry of the Economy and Finance(MEF)
Ministry of Civil Service and Labor (MFP/T)
Ministry of Regional Planning and Community Development (MAT/DC)
Ministry of the Environment and Desertification Control (ME/LCD)
Ministry of Agricultural Development (MDA)
Ministry of Water Supply (MH)
Ministry of Livestock Breeding and Industries (ME/IA)
Ministry of Public Works (MEQ)
Poverty Reduction Strategy Permanent Secretariat (PS/PRS)
National Institute of Statistics (INS)
The following bodies and technical and financial partners (TFPs) were invited to
participate in the workshops:






High Commission for State Modernization (HCME)
Development Analysis and Forecasting Unit (CAPED)
Program for Good Governance and Better Shared Growth (PBG/CMR)
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
World Bank
UNDP
In order to gain experience before envisaging an extension to the Government as
a whole in future CAP-Scan exercises, only a limited number of Ministries and other
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 8
bodies have been involved in this first self-assessment, which, nevertheless, covered the
entire area of Government action without focusing on any particular sector.
The coordination of the CAP-Scan Team at the national level was ensured by
Yayé Seydou, Director General for Development Policies, DGEPD, and his team.
The various workshops were conducted by a team of two facilitators (Boureima
Gado and Samer Hachem, consultants) and two rapporteurs (Messrs. Ali Galadima and
Sitti Fidel Anani, DGEPD).
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 9
3
3.1
Methodology and Outcomes
General Approach
The CAP-Scan process was divided into the following four major phases:
Preparation
• Program Finalization
Framework Adaptation
• Communication
• Early meetings
09 – 16 March
Sectoral Workshops
• Individual meetings
Framework review
•
and implementation
• Synthesis
17 March - April 17
Final Workshop
• Self assessment
• Identification of priorities
Action Plan
• Follow-up action plan
• Report
Post-CAP-Scan
Activities
• Institutionnalization
• Action Plan follow-up
• Organization of- CAPScan activities at
regular intervals
April 21- - April 23
This document describes the first three phases. The fourth phase consists in monitoring
the implementation of the action plan finalized in the workshop.
The first phase included all preparatory work, particularly validation of the scope
of analysis, finalization of the list of participants and adaptation of the matrix to Niger’s
context.
The second phase consisted in meetings by department, with the twofold
objective of gathering observations on the matrix adapted to Niger’s context and
launching the self-assessment in a core group—which consolidated all results by
Ministry in order to identify any possible points of divergence—in preparation for
discussions by the entire group of participants in the third phase.
The third stage consisted in a workshop, attended by an inter-sectoral group of
senior officials of the Administration, towards the following objectives:
 Ensuring finalization of the CAP-Scan self-assessment by the entire group of
participants
 Analyzing results in order to formulate an early draft of action priorities
 Setting priorities for MfDR capacity-building action
 Formulating a common platform of priorities with the SGs
 Developing an action plan
 Defining post-CAP-Scan steps and monitoring
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 10
3.2
Preparatory Phase: Scope and Adaptation of Methodology and Tools
3.2.1 Scope
The preparatory phase began by determining the scope of analysis and choosing
between the following two options:


An inter-sectoral analysis approach focused on the MfDR capacities of the
Administration as a whole
A sectoral analysis approach focused on the MfDR capacities of the participating
Ministries
The first option was adopted, mainly because it offered the possibility of a broad
view without hiding any differences in capacity development between individual
Ministries or sectors.
3.2.2 Readjustment of the Analytical Matrix
The matrix used in Mauritania for the first implementation of the CAP-Scan
procedure in July 2008 was used as a basis.
The changes introduced are summarized in the following table:
Pillar / Dimension
Mauritania
Leadership
Pillar / Dimension
Niger
Leadership
Commentary on Changes
Clarification of the decision level through the
inclusion, as an example, of a decision issued by
decree or taken by the Cabinet in the definition
of Transition
Modification of the heading and of the
definitions of the development stages by
introducing the harmonization of the time
scales and terminologies of the various program
frameworks
Commitment
Commitment
Clarity and
articulation of vision
Clarity and
articulation of
development
orientations
Responsibility and
delegation
Responsibility and
delegation at the
level of senior
officials of the
Administration
Modification of the heading
Involvement of nongovernmental
stakeholders
Participation of nonState actors
Modification of the heading
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 11
Donors' coordination
and alignment on
national priorities
Shift of this dimension to the Accountability
and Partnerships pillar, as two distinct
dimensions (coordination and alignment)
Integration of the
decentralization
dimension
Management of
change
Integration of the
decentralization
dimension
Change in
management
Updating of development stage definitions in
order to focus on "decentralization" rather than
"deconcentration"
Human resources
management
Human resources
management
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Monitoring and
Evaluation
National planning
geared to
development results
National planning
geared to
development results
No change
Monitoring and
evaluation capacity
Capacity for
monitoring and
evaluation of public
policies
Modification of the heading
Modification of the heading
No change
Information system Information system
and decision-support and decision-support No change
tools
tools
System for
measuring user
satisfaction
System for
measuring user
satisfaction
No change
Administration
performance geared
to development
results
Administration
performance geared
to development
results
Readjustment of development stage definitions
in order to focus on the internal performance of
departments
Harmonization of
Harmonization of
information requests information requests Modification of the heading
by donors
by TFPs
Accountability and
Control
Accountability and
Partnerships
Reinstatement of the standard heading
Independence of
Justice and of the
higher Audit
Institutions
Independence of
Justice and of the
higher Audit
Institutions
No change
Parliament's role in
oversight of
Government action
Parliament's role in
oversight of
Government action
No change
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 12
Media independence Media independence No change
Public access to
results
Public access to
results
No change
Coordination among
TFPs
A dimension initially under Leadership in the
case of Mauritania - Here, focus on
coordination
Alignment of
partners on national
priorities
A dimension initially under Leadership in the
case of Mauritania - Here, focus on
harmonization and alignment
Budget consistency
with national
priorities
Planning and
Budgeting
Budget consistency
with national
priorities
Budget preparation
based on objectives
and results
Budget preparation
based on objectives
and results
Participation of nongovernmental actors
in budget planning
and preparation
Participation of nongovernmental actors
No change
in budget planning
and preparation
Intra-departmental
coordination
Intra-departmental
coordination
Inter-sectoral
coordination
Inter-sectoral
coordination
Statistical Data
Processing
Statistics strategy
and plan
Data disaggregation
Budgetary Process
Statistics
Statistics strategy
and plan
Data disaggregation
Extent of data
Reinstatement of the standard heading
No change
No change
No change
No change
Reinstatement of the standard heading
No change
No change
Added on the basis of lessons learned from the
Mauritania exercise
Data quality
assessment
Data quality
assessment
No change
Survey capability
Capacity for
conducting and
exploiting countrywide surveys
Modification of the heading and of
development-stage definitions in order to add
survey management (filing and dissemination)
over and above the capacity for carrying out
surveys
Analysis and
modeling capacity
Dimension added
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 13
3.2.3 Definition of Roles and Responsibilities
Focal Points
A focal point represents his/her Ministry within the CAP-Scan Team and in the
final workshop.
Moreover, a focal point relays information between the CAP-Scan Team and
Ministry stakeholders as a whole. He/she ensures the support necessary for the
organization of the Ministry-level workshop and participates in it.
The above definition applies to the period of the CAP-Scan exercise itself
(diagnosis, definition of priorities and formulation of the action plan). For the period of
action plan implementation, the role of the focal point changes as redefined in Section 4
below ("Dissemination and Follow-Up")
Rapporteurs
Rapporteurs are responsible for writing up, as faithfully as possible, the
discussions held during the workshops. At least two rapporteurs are required, one for
entering material in the CAP-Scan Journal during the session and one for taking notes
during the discussions.
Moreover, a rapporteur ensures early quality control during workshops,
particularly by requesting clarification of any assertions that may seem unclear.
Quality Committee
The Quality Committee has the following responsibilities:



Assisting in adapting the assessment matrix to Niger’s context
Reviewing and validating the outcomes of early Ministry-focused workshops or
helping to reformulate the scope of analysis to include the Government as a
whole
Doing quality-control spot checks on certain CAP-Scan products, on its own
initiative or at the Team's request
The Quality Committee comprised the following members:



Ide Hassane Adamou (EACG/MEF)
Mamoudou Adamou (IS/MH)
Janet Owens (WB)
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 14


3.3
Maria Bardolet (UNDP)
Boureima Gado (Consultant)
Workshop Methodology and Outcomes
The CAP-Scan inter-sectoral workshop was held on April 21-23, 2009 at the National
School of Administration and Magistracy (ENAM), Niamey. The workshop was
complemented with a validation meeting held at the Ministry of the Economy and
Finance (MEF) on April 28, 2009.
This section summarizes the methods used for the major workshop activities and
the respective outcomes.
3.3.1 Self-Assessment
Overall self-assessment is basically a synthesis of sectoral self-assessments,
including the identification of points of convergence and divergence between the
assessments of individual Ministries. The discussions focused on divergences and were
aimed at choosing an assessment for each dimension by consensus.
Discussion outcomes, in the form of a rationale for the score decided for each
dimension, are available in the CAP-Scan Journal.4
The following chart summarizes outcomes by pillar:
4
The CAP-Scan Journal is presented in Annex E.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 15
Average per pillar
Leadership
Evaluation & Monitoring
Accountability & Partnerships
avr- 09
Planining & Budgeting
Statistical Capacity
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
The following chart summarizes outcomes by dimension:
.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 16
Government of the Republic of Niger
CAP-Scan Portrait1.1 Commitment
1.2 Clarity and articulation of development orientations
1.3 Participation of non-state actors
1.4 Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the Administration
1.5 Integration of the decentralization dimension
Leaders hip
1.6 Change in management
1.7 Human resources management
2.1 National planning geared to development results
2.2 Capacity for monitoring and evaluation of public policies
2.3 Information system and decision-support tools
2.4 System for measuring user satisfaction
Suivi et Evaluation
2.5 Administration performance geared to development results
2.6 Harmonization of information requests by TFPs
3.1 Independence of Justice and of the higher Audit Institutions
3.2 Parliament’s role in oversight of Government action
avr -09
3.3 Media independence
3.4 Public access to results
3.5 Coordination among TFPs
Redevabilité et partenariats
3.6 Alignment of partners on national priorities
4.1 Budget consistency with national priorities
4.2 Budget preparation based on objectives and results
4.3 Participation of non-governmental actors in budget planning and preparation
4.4 Intra-departmental coordination
4.5 Inter-sectoral coordination
Planificati on et budgétisation
5.1 Statistics strategy and plan
5.2 Data disaggregation
5.3 Extent of data
5.4 Data quality assessment
Capacité statistique
5.5 Capacity for conducting and exploiting country-wide surveys
5.6 Analysis and modeling capacity
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
A preliminary analysis of average outcomes by pillar leads to the following conclusions:

Pillar averages range between 1.50 and 2.50, with an overall average slightly over 2.
On the whole, these figures reflect MfDR capacities between the phases of
experimentation and transition. At that stage, although still viewed as isolated
efforts, capacity-building initiatives begin to be organized on a broader basis and to
bring about the first changes.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 17
• Progress has mainly been achieved on two pillars, "Accountability and Partnerships"
and "Statistical Data Processing". Regarding the first pillar, the score reflects the
apparent effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms for monitoring Government
action, namely, the judicial authorities, the Parliament and the media, whose
independence is becoming a matter of course. Regarding the second pillar, the
score seems to reflect the substantial efforts put forth with a view to building
statistical data processing capacities—particularly through INS and a National
Statistics Development Strategy (SNDS) —and a data situation which, without being
ideal, provides an overview of results achieved by the main components of national
programs.
In greater detail, average outcomes by dimension suggest the following
conclusions:
The above observations on pillar averages apply also to the level of dimensions.
Accordingly, scores are stronger on, for instance, the dimensions "Parliament's role
in oversight of Government action" and "Media Independence" under the pillar
"Accountability and Partnerships", and the dimension "Statistics strategy and plan"
under the pillar "Statistical Data Processing."

In addition to the two above pillars, the highest scores probably reflect the latest
Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) review, which led to the formulation of ADPRS as a
national frame of reference and a cornerstone of current policy. That review was
highly participatory, probably as part of an evolution in favor of the participatory
process rather than as an isolated event (the dimension "Participation of non-State
actors" under the pillar "Leadership" scored 3.00). The review also led to a
framework clearly articulating results and specifying indicators (the dimension
"Clarity and articulation of development orientations" under the pillar "Leadership"
scored 2.50) and stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluation (the
dimension "National planning geared to development results" under the pillar
"Monitoring and Evaluation" scored 3.00). However, this overall positive assessment
should not divert attention from some weaknesses identified with regard to linkages
between ADPRS and the sectoral frameworks, often as a result of poor timing with
respect to review processes and of non- homogeneous time horizons.
• One weakness is identified with respect to the following dimensions, related to
"human" or "cultural" factors affecting MfDR implementation, under the pillar
"Leadership": "Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the
Administration" (score: 1.25), "Change in management" (score: 2.00) and "Human
resources management" (score: 1.00). Such factors are crucial to MfDR
implementation and can tangibly thwart all progress achieved at the level of
institutional processes and mechanisms. This weakness has already been identified
as critical and is addressed through activities, which, however, are limited to
awareness-raising and training, and are necessary but not sufficient. It is also taken
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 18
into account in the analyses related to civil service modernization programs (in
particular, the Integrated Public Administration Modernization Program or PIMAP).
• Along the same lines, a second weakness is worth noting with respect to the
following dimensions, related to the functioning of the Administration, under the
pillar "Monitoring and Evaluation": "System for measuring user satisfaction" (score:
1.25) and "Administration performance geared to development results" (score:
1.00).

Lastly, weaknesses are observed in relation to the pillar "Planning and Budgeting",
particularly regarding the gap between results-based procedures versus resourcesand activities-based practices in that area (the dimensions "Budget preparation
based on objectives and results" and "Intra-departmental coordination" scored,
respectively, 1.25 and 1.50). Along the same lines, weakness is observed in taking
decentralization requirements into consideration in planning and, consequently,
budgeting and ensuring budget transparency (the dimension "Integration of the
decentralization dimension" under the pillar "Leadership" scored 1.50). However,
these weakness, although widespread within the Administration, should not hide
progress achieved in some sectors (health in particular), which have developed best
practices that may serve as examples for all Government levels.
3.3.2 Determination of Priorities
Priority dimensions were identified through successive analytical evaluations on the
basis of the following two criteria:


Priority
Feasibility
In particular, the following method was used in the workshops:

Application of criterion 1, "priority" (significance / urgency)
o Key question: "Regardless of constraints (political considerations, human and
financial resources and works in progress), what is the "ideal" sequence of
MfDR capacity-building measures?"
o Work in sub-groups and validation of two priority levels (1 and 2) by
consensus

Consideration of the assessment
o Visualization of tabulated "Evaluation x Priority" values for priorities 1 and 2
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 19

Application of criterion 2, "difficulty" (resources available, resources to be mobilized
/ short-term and medium-term effects / technical, human and political complexity)
o Discussion of priority 1 dimensions by the entire group of participants in view
of three difficulty levels (low, medium and high)

Determination of priority dimensions requiring an action plan
o Discussion by the entire group of participants
After discussion, priority dimensions were defined with a view to immediate
action focused on the weaknesses identified. The initial selection was presented to SGs
in a meeting organized on the second day of the workshop in order to note their
observations.
The following priority dimensions were specified:

"Leadership" pillar
o Responsibility and delegation at the level of senior officials of the
Administration
o Integration of the decentralization dimension
o Human resources management

"Monitoring and Evaluation" pillar
o System for measuring user satisfaction
o Administration performance geared to development results

"Planning and Budgeting" pillar
o Budget preparation based on objectives and results
Contrary to an initial assessment, the dimension "Participation of nongovernmental actors in budget planning and preparation" was ultimately not included in
the priority dimensions in view of complexity considerations voiced in the meeting with
the SGs.
The outcome of the priority setting process is presented in the following
diagram, which shows the self-assessment results, the two priority levels comprising all
CAP-Scan dimensions, and the three levels of difficulty:
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 20
Priority 1
Self-assessment results regarding the priority of dimensions
1.7 Human
resources
management
1.4 Responsibility
and delegation at
the level of
senior officials of
the
Administration
2.4 System for
measuring user
satisfaction
4.2 Budget
preparation
based on
objectives and
results
Priority 2
2.5
Administration
performance
geared to
development
results
4.3 Participation
of nongovernmental
actors in budget
planning and
preparation
1.1 Commitment
1.6 Change in
management
2.6 Harmonization
of information
requests by TFPs
3.4 Public access
to results
Coordination
among TFPs
4.5 Inter-sectoral
coordination
5.4 Data quality
assessment
1.5 Integration of
the decentralization
dimension
5.6 Capacity for
analysis and
modeling
2.3 Information
system and
decision-support
tools
3.1 Independence
of Justice and of
the higher Audit
Institutions
4.5 Inter-sectoral
coordination
1.00
1.25
Self-assessment results : Difficulty
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
1.50
Low
1.75
2.00
Medium
1.2 Clarity and
articulation of
development
orientations
4.1 Budget
consistency
with national
priorities
5.5 Capacity
for conducting
and exploiting
country-wide
surveys
2.25
2.2 Capacity for
monitoring and
evaluation of
public policies
5.3 Extent of
data
2.50
High
Page 21
3.6 Alignment of
partners on
national priorities
3.2 Parliament's
role in oversight of
Government
action
3.3 Media
independence
1.3 Participation of
non-State actors
2.1 National
planning geared to
development
results
5.2 Data
disaggregation
2.75
3.00
5.1
Statistics
strategy
and plan
3.25
3.3.3 Preparation of the Action Plan
An action plan was drawn up for building the capacities related to the six priority
dimensions identified. It was formulated during the third day of the final workshop and
finalized in a meeting held by the CAP-Scan Team on April 28, 2009.
In that meeting, attention was drawn inter alia to the need for a clear
specification of the resources necessary for the implementation of the action plan. The
budgets for the current year are given, in view of the initiatives already launched (some
of which were referred to in the CAP-Scan process). Accordingly, the above need should
be specifically addressed in future self-assessment exercises. In fact, the CAP-Scan
action plan may be regarded as a "roadmap" to priority capacity-building objectives
rather than as an actual project to be added to existing initiatives.
The priority action plan is presented in the following table, which shows only the
priority dimensions:
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 22
CAP-Scan Action Plan (first version)
Dimensions/
Products
1. Leadership
Responsibility and
delegation at the
level of senior
officials of the
Administration
Establishing ToRbased results
frameworks for
Ministries
Integration of the
decentralization
dimension
Adapting the guide
for preparing
Council
Development Plans
(PDCs) to the
results-based
approach
Setting up a local
planning system
based on the
experience of
some Ministries
(Health and
Education
Ministries)
Human resources
management
Incorporating
MfDR into the
ENAM curriculum
Indicator/
Follow-up
Reference
situation
Target situation
Obtained
CAP-Scan
1.25
2
% of
Ministries
with a
resultsbased
action plan
CAP-Scan
0 or ?
(Ministry of
Health to be
verified)
25%
1.5
2
End of 2009
Number of
Ministries
having set
up such a
system
2 (Ministries
of Health
and
Education)
7 (sectors of
health,
education and
Rural
Development
Strategy (SDR))
CAP-Scan
1
2
Number of
sections
having
adapted
the training
0
Modules linked
to MfDR pillars
in general
Administration
and public
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Funding
Mobilizable
Source
Responsible
executive
Priority
Comment/ Link with existing activity
1
Prime Minister
(PM) (Cabinet)
1
Ministry of
Territorial and
Community
Development
(MAT/DC),
General
Directorate for
Community
Development
(DG DC)
SDR State
Secretary (SESDR)
Guide review in progress but not including the
results-based approach.
1
ENAM / MEF
support
Page 23
Developing a
training module in
training
establishments
(ENAM and
University)
Build on health
sector experience
regarding
individual agent
assessment
(profile description
and evaluation
record)
Training human
resources
directorates
(HRDs) on
individual
performance
management
2. Monitoring and Evaluation
System for
CAP-Scan
measuring user
satisfaction
Proposing a
comprehensive
mechanism for
measuring
Administration
service users'
satisfaction
Administration
CAP-Scan
performance
geared to
development
results
Formulating
% of
Ministry strategic
Ministries
plans for individual
units
Formulating and
% of
0
1.25
finance
End of 2009
MEF - DGEPD
1st semester,
2010
Ministry of
Public Health
(MSP)
End of 2009 / all
HRDs
MFP/T
2
1st semester,
2010
1
HCME - MFP/T
1
2
0
25%
PM - CAPED /
Ministries
25% (same
PM - CAPED /
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
PIMAP 2 addresses the issue of individual
performance assessment. A link to current best
practices should be established.
Objective already included in ADPRS.
1
Page 24
implementing
monitoring plans
based on the
strategic plans
Conducting
organization audits
in some
departments (to
be confirmed)
Ministries
Number of
Ministries
3. Accountability and Partnerships
4. Planning and Budgeting
Budget
CAP-Scan
preparation based
on objectives and
results
Organize a
discussion of the
Medium Term
Budget Framework
(MDBF) with the
Ministries before
finalization
Adapting the
existing action
plans and Medium
Term Expenditure
Framework (MTEF)
Providing SGs with
training and
information on
results-based
budgeting
5. Statistical Data Processing
MH
bodies as above)
Ministries
7 (sectors of
health,
education and
Rural
Development
Strategy (SDR))
PM - Cabinet
1.25
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Resources to be confirmed with SE-SDR.
1
1st semester,
2010
MEF
1st semester,
2010
MTEF Team
End of 2009
MTEF Team
Page 25
4
4.1
Dissemination and follow-up
Communication Strategy
The following seven audiences should be taken into consideration with regard to
communication activities:







Ministries and bodies having participated in the exercise
Other Ministries
The Parliament
NGOs and associations active in the area of development
Unions
TFPs
Decentralized units
The following table summarizes the communication strategy reviewed with the
CAP-Scan Team:
Target audience
Participant Ministries
and bodies
All Ministries
Parliament
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Objectives
 Presentation of
outcomes
 Ownership of
conclusions and action
plan by SGs and other
responsible officers
 Definition of
responsibilities for
activities involving the
Ministry / body
 Information on the 2009
CAP-Scan exercise
 Presentation of
outcomes
 Discussion on
communication at the
level of Ministers
 Discussion on
participation in the next
exercise
 Information on the 2009
CAP-Scan exercise
 Presentation of
Method and means
Workshop organized by
DGEPD in the Ministry and
attended by the SG and the
participants in the initial
workshop.
Conference of SGs.
First meeting with the
General Secretariat of the
Parliament in order to
Page 26

Development NGOs and
associations


Unions



TFPs



Decentralized units



Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
outcomes (particularly
the diagnosis)
Discussion on
participation in the next
exercise
Information on the 2009
CAP-Scan exercise
Presentation of
outcomes (particularly
the diagnosis)
Information on the 2009
CAP-Scan exercise
Presentation of
outcomes
Discussion on activities
related to the dimension
"Human resources
management"
Information on the 2009
CAP-Scan exercise
Presentation of
outcomes
Mobilization on the
priority action plan with
a view to alignment
Information on the 2009
CAP-Scan exercise
Presentation of
outcomes
(particularly the
diagnosis)
define the best
communication method for
the Parliament as a whole.
Presentation workshops for
NGOs, associations and
representative
organizations already
targeted in the framework
of results-based
management (RBM)
training activities.
Presentation workshop for
trade union groups.
NB: Joint organization with
other structures concerned
(including MFP/T, PIMAP
and HCME) to be studied.
Presentation to the OECDCAD National Committee.
Use of existing protocols
and mechanisms (for
instance, inclusion of a
MfDR module in training
activities to be carried out
in the framework of the
Community Action Program
[CAP]).
In the first year, lower
priority than
communication at national
level.
Page 27
4.2
Monitoring Mechanism
The launching of a cycle of recurring Mired capacity-building activities is a major
CAP-Scan objective. Accordingly, mainstreaming the CAP-Scan process in the
Administration is crucial. Moreover, as in any project for change, it is important to
preserve the overall consistency of capacity-building initiatives and to ensure that the
CAP-Scan action plan is coordinated with the following initiatives of that type:



Capacity-building program for MEF (partners: WM and European Union [EU])
Comprehensive capacity-building program (whose design is in progress under MEF
supervision)
Other support initiatives promoted by TFPs (inter alia, UNDP, UNICEF and ADB).
The following institutionalization objectives have been set:


Pooling efforts and ensuring comprehensive transparency over Mired capacitybuilding initiatives as a whole, regardless of the source of funding;
Ensuring concerted inter-sectoral follow-up on the CAP-Scan action plan and,
generally, on the annual Mired capacity-building work plan.
The mechanism to be set up in that connection should be based on existing
structures, as far as possible.
Based on these objectives and constraints, it is proposed that the
institutionalization mechanism should mainly include the following bodies and
responsibilities:




Conference of SGs: Monitoring of implementation within the Administration
(semester meetings)
Technical Committee (CAP-Scan Team): Quarterly progress monitoring
DGEPD: Follow-up coordination and preparation of half-yearly progress reports
Department of Studies and Programming (DEP): Follow-up of activities at ministerial
level
Actually, according to its mandate, DEP is the institutional unit responsible for
follow-up on activities within the various Ministries. Specific monitoring of CAP-Scan
priority activities is incumbent upon the CAP-Scan focal point within DEP. In the
particular case of MFP/T, the designation of that focal point requires further discussion
because other bodies, in addition to DEP, are involved in monitoring measures for the
modernization of the Administration.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 28
It is proposed that the action plan be implemented in one-year cycles, and
reviewed in conjunction with ADPRS reviews in order to ensure reciprocal sharing of
information:
4.3
Information Sharing for Future CAP-Scan Exercises
With regard to the next CAP-Scan exercise, the main sources of information to
be shared on organization methods are the following two:
 African Community of MfDR Practitioners (AfCoP)5
 The MfDR Secretariat website (www.mfdr.org)
5
http://www.cop-mfdr-africa-fr.org
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 29
5
Subsequent Steps
The following table shows the agreed schedule of activities planned as a followup to the workshop along three lines of action:

Action plan finalization in light of observations formulated by SGs and after addition
of any details

Communication for dissemination within the Government

Implementation of the institutionalization plan
The very next step is the organization of meetings with Ministry SGs having
participated in the exercise with a view to the validation of the priority action plan.
Operational implementation of the CAP-Scan Niger
action plan
Time limit
Who?
Product 1: Finalization of the CAP-Scan action plan
Team meeting: Clarification and validation of the
initial action plan
Action plan finalization (1- to 2-day workshop):
Incorporation of feedback from SGs and risks
Preparation of presentation to meeting of SGs for
validation
Preparation of presentation to meeting of the
Assistance Coordination Committee
Product 2: Dissemination of the approach within
the Government
Preparation of communication and follow-up plan
Preparation of presentation tools
Final report dissemination
Meetings with SGs of participant Ministries
Meetings with the Assistance Coordination
Committee
Meeting with all SGs
May 29
April 28
Team
June 5
Team
June 12
DGEPD/
EACG
Product 3: Definition of the CAP-Scan
institutionalization mechanism and drafting of ToR
Discussion on the initial proposal (Team meeting)
Incorporation of comments, and finalization (ToR?)
Validation with the various stakeholders (in a
meeting with SGs?)
June 19
AP
RIL
27
MAY
4
11
JUNE
18
25
1
8
15
22
June 19
April 30
April 30
May 7
May 22
?
BG/SH*
BG/SH
BG/SH
DGEPD
DGEPD
?
DGEPD
April 28
BG/SH
BG/ MEF
* BG = Boureima Gado, SH = Samer Hachem
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 30
6
Evaluation of the CAP-Scan mission
The following chart summarizes the CAP-Scan mission assessments by the workshop
participants (22 team members replied):
Evaluation (scale 1 to 5)
1 Do you consider the CAP-Scan approach useful in relation to the current MfDR
capacity building efforts ?
2 Do you consider the CAP-Scan self-assessment as an appropriate method for
measuring the progress achieved by the Government in building MfDR capacities?
3 Do the priorities and the action plan formulated as part of the exercise reflect
your conception of the short-term measures necessary for MfDR capacity-building?
4 How do you rate the facilitator's ability to communicate clearly?
5 How do you rate the facilitator's knowledge in the area of MfDR?
6 How do you rate the facilitator's ability and techniques as a facilitator and
moderator?
7 Do the objectives of the MfDR approach seem to you clearer after the CAP-Scan
exercise?
8 Do you think that you can repeat the exercise without help from an external
facilitator?
9 Do you think that the MfDR approach will contribute to MfDR capacity-building?
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
Over and above the—on the whole—quite positive assessment of the CAP-Scan exercise
(overall average: 4.25 on a scale of 5), the following observations are in order.

With regard to two slightly lower marks:
o The mark given in relation to the action plan probably confirms a lesson
learned from the previous exercise, namely, that definition of priorities and
formulation of an action plan need strengthening and additional time.
o The mark given in relation to the ability to repeat the exercise without
external assistance indicates that (although the overall assessment is largely
positive on this point) ownership is a delicate issue. This is borne out in
various comments to the effect that more time is required for the exercise as
a whole. This is a lesson that will be taken into account in improving the
methodology.

With regard to the two highest marks, which seem to confirm the value of the
exercise with respect to the methodology and the analytical matrix:
o The self-assessment is largely considered as an appropriate method for
measuring the progress achieved by the Government in building MfDR
capacities.
o The exercise is believed to have clarified the objectives of the MfDR
approach. The clarification was probably achieved through the breakdown of
the analysis into pillars and dimensions.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 31
A sample of comments by the participants is presented below:
•
On diagnosis and analysis: "Diagnostic analysis should be more thorough with a
view to proposing more effective strategies." "The formulation of the elements of
the matrix should be revised."
•
On the methodology for priority definition and action plan formulation: "The
priority-setting procedure should be revised (the score method should be
applied)." "A methodology for drawing up the action plan is necessary."
•
On ownership and overall duration: "Discussions should be better organized in
order to make better use of time and rationalize workshop duration." "More time
should be provided for the sectoral and comprehensive workshops. In some cases,
we are obliged to leave important discussions unfinished." "The representatives of
the Administration had not been briefed well enough to understand the process."
•
On subsequent action: "Comparison with similar countries would be a useful
approach, particularly in view of community integration objectives." "A
Government workshop on CAP-Scan should be held." On the need for more active
Government participation (comments made in the meeting with the SGs): "There is
a need for more extensive communication, for greater commitment on the part of
decision-makers and for a more detailed presentation of diagnostic procedures in
order to raise the awareness of civil servants." "A mechanism should be devised to
ensure more effective participation by political decision-makers." "A
communication plan on RBM should be implemented (promoting best practices
and explaining the diagnosis)."
Although the commentary has been largely encouraging on the whole and
includes some particularly positive remarks, the above sampled observations nuance
the overall assessment by highlighting the following elements:
•
Methodology and procedures for identifying priorities and formulating the action
plan
•
The time constraint
•
Institutionalization, and involvement of decision-makers from the outset.
The above elements will be taken into consideration in drawing up, in a separate
document, an account of lessons learned from the two pilot implementations.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 32
7
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Annexes
Page 33
7.1
The CAP-Scan Matrix
Overview of pillars, dimensions and key questions
1. Leadership
2. Monitoring and Evaluation
Commitment
1.1. What is the
decisionmakers' level of
commitment to
a management
for development
results
approach?
Clarity and
articulation of
development
orientations
1.2 To what
extent does
national
planning clearly
present the
development
objectives and
form the frame
of reference for
Government
action?
Participation of
non-State
actors
1.3 To what
extent do civil
society
organizations
and the private
sector
participate by
the side of the
Government as
partners in
achieving
development
results?
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
National
planning
geared to
development
results
2.1 Are public
policies subject
to a regular and
sustained
monitoring and
evaluation
process that
permits
adjustments in
performance
objectives?
Capacity for
2.2 To what
monitoring
extent does the
and evaluation Administration
of public
possess
policies
adequate
capabilities for
ensuring
monitoring and
evaluation of
public policies?
Information
system and
decisionsupport tools
2.3 To what
extent does the
Administration
have adequate
tools, IT in
particular, to
ensure
monitoring and
evaluation of
public policies
and use of
factual data in
decisionmaking?
3.
Accountability
and 4. Planning and Budgeting
5. Statistical Data Processing
Partnerships
Independence 3.1 To what
Budget
4.1 Are the
Statistics
5.1 What is the
of Justice and extent do the
consistency
instruments of
strategy and
level of
of the higher control
with national planning
plan
implementation
Audit
institutions (inter
priorities
(ADPRS) and
of the national
Institutions
alia, the Court
budgeting
strategy for the
of Auditors) and
(MTEF and
development of
the judiciary
LdF)
statistics?
function
consistently
independently
articulated?
of the executive
branch?
Parliament's
3.2 Up to what
Budget
4.2 Is budget
Data
5.2 What is the
role in
level does the
preparation
allocation based disaggregation Government’s
oversight of
Parliament fulfill
based on
on each
capacity in
Government
its role of
objectives and department's
terms of data
action
exercising
results
results and
disaggregation?
oversight of
objectives,
Government
taking into
action,
account the
particularly as
assessment of
regards
past results?
economic
policies and
budget
allocations?
Media
3.3 To what
Participation of 4.3 To what
Extent of data 5.3 Is the scope
independence degree are the
nonextent do nonof available
(public and
governmental governmental
statistical data
private) media,
actors in
actors
broad enough
as a whole, able
budget
participate in
to measure all
to play
planning and the budget
indicators
effectively their
preparation
allocation
related to
role in criticizing
process and in
national
the authorities?
results
priorities?
assessment?
Page 34
Responsibility
and delegation
at the level of
senior officials
of the
Administration
1.4 Do the
management
practices of
senior officials
of the
Administration
encourage the
development,
involvement
and motivation
of civil
servants?
Integration of 1.5 To what
the
extent do the
decentralization Administration
dimension
and the regional
authorities
operate
coherently with
a view to
achieving
development
results?
Change in
1.6 To what
management
extent has the
Government
provided itself
with the means
necessary for
addressing
capacitybuilding as a
genuine project
for in-depth
change in the
Administration
and its
practices?
Human
1.7 To what
resources
extent does
management
RBM affect
management
practices at the
individual level?
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
System for
measuring
user
satisfaction
Administration
performance
geared to
development
results
Harmonization
of information
requests by
TFPs
2.4 Has the
administration
put to use
means for
measuring
service quality
in order to
assess user
satisfaction?
Public access
to results
3.4 What is the
assessment of
the level of
public
dissemination of
information by
the
Government?
Intradepartmental
coordination
4.4 Does the
preparation of
the budget
within a
department
reasonably
correspond to
objectives at the
various levels?
Data quality
assessment
5.4 What are
the means used
by the
Administration
to improve the
quality of
statistical data?
2.5 To what
degree is
factual
information from
monitoring and
evaluation used
to improve the
Administration
for better
development
results?
2.6 What is the
level of
harmonization
among TFPs on
national
reporting
procedures and
on the
organization of
joint missions
and studies?
Coordination
among TFPs
3.5 To what
extent do
Administration
mechanisms
ensure effective
coordination
among TFP
activities?
Inter-sectoral
coordination
4.5 To what
extent does
coordination on
the basis of
inter-sectoral
objectives play
a role in budget
preparation?
Capacity for
conducting
and exploiting
country-wide
surveys
5.5 Does the
Administration
have the
capability to
carry out
country-wide
surveys and to
file and
disseminate the
findings?
Alignment of
partners on
national
priorities
3.6 To what
extent do the
Administration's
good MfDR
practices
ensure the
external
partners'
alignment on
national
priorities?
Capacity for
analysis and
modeling
Page 35
5.6 Does the
Administration
have the
capability to
analyze
statistical data
for forecasting
purposes?
7.2
Definition of Capacity-Building Stages
Awareness
Inadequate management capacities
are recognized as an obstacle to
achieving development results. The
Administration is aware of, but not
clearly committed to, MfDR. Office
holders acknowledge the need to do
better and wish to operate in
accordance with the principles of
good management. This stage often
involves a sense of frustration and
dissatisfaction with Administration
performance. Awareness of
appropriate management practices
and a sense of urgency for change
encourage the adoption of different
methods and lead to the next stage.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Capacity-Building Stages
Experimentation
Transition
The Government begins to commit to
The Government has committed
shifting to good management practices itself to MfDR and embarks on
and explores various approaches. In
transition from the previous to the
this stage, office holders gather ideas
new methods. Individuals begin to
from various sources and try out new
adopt the new practices,
methods. Experimentation may take
perceiving the old methods as
the form of pilot projects and may
ineffectual in handling day-to-day
involve studies and working groups.
problems. This stage may be
One problem at this stage is lack of
characterized by difficult decisions.
homogeneity, and various tools are
For instance, conversion to a
chosen on the basis of personal
results-oriented framework implies
preference. Moreover, launching
dropping the earlier indicators and
multiple initiatives at the same time
measuring methods. Determining
may result in pursuing none
priorities and managing change at
thoroughly. Many office holders
the human level are further
acknowledge that MfDR is beneficial,
significant issues. The spread of
provided that the approach is fully
the new approach on a large scale
pursued. Their number and resolve
in the Administration leads to the
lead to the next stage.
next stage.
Sustainable Implementation
MfDR is mainstreamed into
Administration practices as a crosscutting approach. The main
administrative processes
(formulation of national strategies
and preparation of the budget)
conform to the new practices.
Indicators are used to monitor
Government action and regular
reviews lead to realignment on
national priorities. Civil servants,
implicated in the change, are
trained and prepared to own the
new management tools, which are
regularly reviewed in the light of
experience. Resource allocations
ensure the sustainability of the
new methods, whose effect on the
services provided by the
Government becomes evident.
Page 36
7.3
Summary of Meetings and Activities
Ministry / Institution
Team
MAT/DC
MDA
ME/LCD
MSP
MEF
Team
PS/ADPRS
Team
MH
European Commission
MSP
MDA
Team
INS
UNDP
MAT/DC
MEN
MFP/T
MEQ
ME/LCD
ME/IA
PS/PRS
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Activity
Date / Time
Team meeting
March 10
Presentation to the SG
March 11
Presentation to the SG
March 11
Presentation to the SG
March 11
Presentation to the SG
March 11
Presentation to the SG
March 13
Meeting with focal points of Ministries and March 13
SDR
Presentation to the Coordinator
March 13
Team meeting
March 13
Presentation to the SG
March 16, 9 am
Presentation, B. Mandouze
March 16, 10 am
Workshop
March 17
Workshop
March 18
Meeting with Quality Committee
March 18
Workshop
March 19
Strategy Unit Presentation
March 19
Workshop
March 24
Workshop
March 25
Workshop
March 31
Workshop
April 2
Workshop
April 8
Workshop
April 9
Workshop
April 10
Page 37
MEF
MDA
Team
Meetings of SGs
Team
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Workshop
Workshop (complement)
Final workshop
Presentation of results
Team meeting
April 17
April 20
April 21, 22, 23
April 22
April 28
Page 38
7.4
List of CAP-Scan Participants
The following table lists the members of the CAP-Scan team, including the focal points in the various Ministries, and the participants
in the various ministerial workshops.
Name
CAP-Scan responsibilities
Ministry of the Economy and Finance (MEF)
Yayé Seydou
Coordinator, MEF focal
point
Abdou Soumana
Yakoubou M. Sani
Sitti Fidel Anani
Rapporteur
Ali Galadima Chittou
Rapporteur
Seyni Soumana
Deputy coordinator
Quality Committee
member
Ousseini Nana Aichatou (Ms)
Morou Moussa
Ide Hassane Adamou
Quality Committee
member
Chaibou Daouda
Diallo Zeinabou
Daouda Adamou
Dogari Bassirou
Ibrahim Habiboulaye
Gati Seybou
Dankarami Mamadou
Ousseini Nana Aichatou (Ms)
Sani Mariama (Ms)
Ada Assoumane
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Organization
E-mail
Tel.
DGEPD/MEF
seydou.yaye@yahoo.fr
96 97 36 81
SG/MEF
CCD/MEF
DGEPD/MEF
DGEPD/MEF
DGEPD/MEF
yakoubousani@yahoo.fr
sittifidel@yahoo.fr
aligaladima18@yahoo.fr
soumana18@yahoo.fr
20 72 20 37
96 96 66 13
96 26 73 07
96 58 63 78
20 72 38 38
DGEPD/MEF
DRFM/MEF
EACG/MEF
moussakoulbey@yahoo.fr
hassaneidea@yahoo.fr
20 72 38 38
20 73 29 43
20 72 32 39
DGCMP/MEF
CCE/DGEPD/MEF
CCRI
DGE/MEF
DGI/DCEI/MEF
DGIF/MEF
DGPS/MEF
DARPC/DGEPD/MEF
DSEPD/DGEPD/MEF
DGCF/MEF
Daouda.chaibou@yahoo.fr
ihabiboulaye@yahoo.fr
naichatou@yahoo.fr
Mariama.sani@yahoo.fr
96 40 68 05
96 55 42 64
93 92 65 83
20 72 41 38
96 42 64 37
96 87 30 15
96 88 45 31
96 29 10 80
96 87 04 34
Page 39
Maman Aminou Idi
Abdou Souley
Faladou Fatimata (Ms)
Sidibé Saidou
Manou Abdou
Ibrahim Abdoulaye
Maazou Illiassou
Ministry of Public Health (MSP)
Adamou Amadou
Dr. Moussa Fatimata (Ms)
Boureima Hamidou
Aissata Maiga (Ms)
Abou Mahamane
Dr Yamba Ibrahima
Paul Haoua (Ms)
Laouan Adiza (Ms)
Ibrahim Ouba
Abdou Sayo Farmo
Ibrahim Amy (Ms)
Dr. Issoufou Aboubacar
Haoua Ibrahim (Ms)
DSEPD/DGEPD/MEF
CCD/MEF
DGPS/MEF
Cabinet/MEF
DGF/MEF
DGI/DES/MEF
DGF/DRM/MEF
MSP focal point
Sani Zané
Maman Elh Maty
Adakal Aboubacar
Hubert Balique
Oumanou Amadou
Ministry of Agricultural Development (MDA)
Adamou Daguioua
MDA focal point
Abdou Chaibou
Nouhou Lamine
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
DSE/DEP/MSP
SG/MSP
DEP/MSP
DCS/DEP/MSP
DERP/DEP/MSP
DSE/DEP/MSP
DSE/DEP/MSP
DSE/DEP/MSP
PNLP/MSP
DRFM/MSP
ULSS/MSP
DLMIE/MSP
DN/MSP
96 40 32 81
91 92 49 40
Ousfa2002@yahoo.fr
Ibrahim_abdoulaye88@yahoo.fr
maazouil@yahoo.fr
20 72 60 19
adamou_nig@yahoo.fr
moussafatim2@yahoo.fr
96 88 23 10
aissadiallob@yahoo.fr
abou_mahamane@yahoo.fr
yambaibrahim@yahoo.fr
phaoua@yahoo.fr
tchaicheondy@yahoo.fr
i.ouba@yahoo.fr
abdousan@yahoo.fr
amyali66@yahoo.fr
issouf_bacar@yahoo.fr
haouaibrahim@yahoo.fr
DAP/DRH/MSP
DPHL/MSP
DSS/RE/MSP
CT/SG/MSP
DRFM/MSP
mamanematy@yahoo.fr
adakal_boukary@yahoo.fr
hubertbalique@hotmail.com
omaramadou2008@yahoo.fr
DEP/MDA
SG/MDA
DEP/MDA
adamou_dang@yahoo.fr
cadanfouss@yahoo.fr
Nouhou61@yahoo.fr
Page 40
96 29 57 77
96 98 18 97
96 58 20 75
96 96 05 91
96 59 84 01
94 32 35 25
96 46 89 31
90 31 32 97
90 40 74 61
96 47 91 56
96 49 43 71
20 73 36 34
Harouna Ibrahima
Ousmane Arboncana
Moussa Adamou
Aboubacar Mamadou Kourna
DS/MDA
DS/MDA
DRFM/MDA
DGA/MDA
ibraharou@yahoo.fr
arbonous@yahoo.fr
Bachir Ousseini
National Institute of Statistics (INS)
Ibrahim Soumaila
INS focal point
DGGR/MDA
bachousseini@yahoo.fr
DCDS/INS
isoumaila@ins.ne
ibrahimdangouna@yahoo.fr
gapto2m@ins.ne
lado@ins.ne
homar@ins.ne
mchekarao@ins.ne
abeidou@ins.ne
ohabi@ins.ne
atoure@ins.ne
20 20 31 28
adamamadou62@yahoo.fr
bbdouboule@yahoo.fr
diorisoul@yahoo.fr
Djafara22@yahoo.fr
djibyac@yahoo.fr
mousdjib@yahoo.fr
moustoworld@yahoo.fr
Moumouni_djibrilla2007@yahoo.fr
elhadjikollomoustapha@yahoo.com
Laye_andillo@yahoo.fr
20 20 30 22
issabawa@yahoo.fr
ibrahimdiffa@yahoo.fr
limanabari@yahoo.fr
96 97 5707
Gapto Mai Moussa
SDS/INS
Maman Laouali Ado
Conseiller SG/INS
Omar Haoua (Ms)
CFP/INS
Mahamadou Chekarao
SEE/INS
Abdoullahi Beidou
DG/INS
Habi Oumarou
DER/INS
Touré Abdoulaye
Communication/INS
Ministry of Education (MEN)
Adam Amadou
MEN focal point
DEP/MEN
Kimba Amadou
SG
Diori Hamani Souley
DRFM/MEN
Diafara Djibo
DGAEMF/MEN
Boureima Djibo Yacouba
DEP/MEN
Moussa Djibo
DSI/MEN
Assogba Moustapha
DCDA/MEN
Moumouni Djibrilla
DGEB/MEN
Elhadji Kollo Moustapha
DRH/MEN
Halilou a. Abdoulaye
DLC/MEN
Ministry of Regional Planning and Community Development (MAT/DC)
Issa Bawa
MAT/DC focal point
DGP/MATDC
Elhadj Ibrahim Adamou
SG/MATDC
Liman Abari Checou Sanoussi
DDRL/MATDC
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
mkourna_aboubacar@yahoo.fr
Page 41
20 75 27 72
96 97 44 63
96 28 70 70
20 37 23 35
20 73 21 48
96 52 74 61
96 97 26 58
96 98 18 04
96 25 70 11
96 97 43 92
96 97 66 18
Fatouma Belko (Ms)
Mahaman Mansour Sani
Ibrahim Combasset
Chekaraou Idi
Tankoano Diassibo
Boureima Alhassane
Ibrahim Binta (Ms)
Bagna Soumaila (Ms)
Idi Dilli Sani
Garro Gado
Issifou Bissala
Sidibe Mahaman
Amina Bachard (Ms)
Ministry of Civil Service and Labor (MFP/T)
Djibeye Abdoulaye
MFP/T focal point
Oumarou Amadou
Bagourme Boubacar
Abdourhamane Harouna
Bagourmé Oumarou
Adam Zakari
DGAT/MATDC
DGAT/MATDC
DSEAD/MATDC
DS/MATDC
DADR/DGAT/MATDC
PSPR/MATDC
DASE/MATDC
DEP/MATDC
DPCM/DRFM/MATDC
DL/MATDC
DONGAD/MATDC
DCD/MATDC
DCD/MATDC
fatoumabelko@yahoo.ca
mansoursani@yahoo.fr
combasset@yahoo.fr
C_idi@yahoo.fr
diastanko@yahoo.fr
boureimaelhassane@yahoo.fr
Todi-binta@yahoo.fr
bagnasoumaila@yahoo.fr
DMSP/MFPT
SG/MFPT
DEP/MFPT
DPE/MFPT
DEP/MFPT
DL/MFPT
mehanatera@yahoo.fr
Saidou Rabi Roumar (Ms)
DRH/MFPT
Sanoussi Fourera (Ms)
Hamani Oumarou
Ministry of Public Works (MEQ)
Sidi Zakari
Koabo Idi
Aminou Amani
Abdourahmane Tari Bako
Amadou Diori
DGC/MFPT
DAID/RP
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
MEQ focal point
DEP/MEQ
SG/MEQ
DEP/MEQ
DEP/MEQ
CT/MEQ
bissalaissoufou@yahoo.fr
Amibach2008@yahoo.fr
Harouna.abdouramane@yahoo.fr
Oumarou.bagourm@yahoo.fr
96 50 45 40
96 11 25 23
96 88 53 24
96 98 91 88
96 97 38 22
96 98 64 87
96 97 30 79
96 29 16 83
96 28 71 85
96 53 95 39
90 42 86 32
20 72 32 96
96 59 24 66
96 97 99 27
96 59 80 36
90 35 15 72
96 96 52 22
20732242 p105
93 80 52 37
20732943 p130
96 44 73 74
96 97 05 73
96 47 25 10
kouaboidi@yahoo.fr
taribako@yahoo.fr
Page 42
Souleymane Yacouba
DRFM/MEQ
Laouali Dodo
DTN/DGTP/MEQ
Amadou Bassirou
DS/MEQ
Kadri Hassoumi
IS/MEQ
Abani Zeinaba (Ms)
IGS/MEQ
Sani Abdoulaye
DL/MEQ
Mafaki Mahamadou
DCT/DGRR/MEQ
Djibo Maidawa
DE/DGRR/MEQ
Boureima Aminata Hassane
DRH/MEQ
(Ms)
Ministry of the Environment and Desertification Control (ME/LCD)
Garba Hamissou
ME/LCD focal point
DEP/MELD
Mamadou Mamane
SG/MELCD
Ousmane Hatta
Studies
Division/DEP/MELCD
Maisharou Abdou
Deputy Coordinator, ROSELT
Boubacar Zeinabou (Ms)
DPF/DRH/MELCD
Kimba Hassane
Director, BEEEU
Assoumane Garba
Chief,
Forest
Planning
Division
Boukar Yagana (Ms)
Program Administrator
Aboubakar Illiassou
DRTR/LCE/MELCD
Moustapha Ibrahim
DPNE/MELCD
Abdoulaye Ali Mahamadou
DFC/DGE/EF
Amadou Oumani Abdoulaye
DECT/MELCD
Ministry of Livestock Breeding and Industries (ME/IA)
Souley Daouda
ME/IA focal point
DEP/MEIA
Norougna2004@yahoo.fr
Dr. Baare Amadou
Naroua Ousmane Magagi
Morou Mounkaila
baareamadou@yahoo.fr
narouaousmanemagagi@yahoo.fr
Mouk67@yahoo.com
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
SG/MEIA
DEP/MEIA
DSA/MEIA
abassirou@yahoo.fr
garba_h283@yahoo.fr
Mamane11n@yahoo.fr
o.hatta@yahoo.fr
96 97 21 62
96 55 44 44
96 28 66 04
90 45 55 31
93 93 36 04
97 02 72 73
96 66 71 33
96 88 02 47
96 72 67 52
20 73 40 69
maisharoua@yahoo.com
boubazeina@yahoo.fr
Hassane.kimba@yahoo.fr
garbafvp@yahoo.fr
20 73 40 69
96895747
96 97 41 82
96 88 81 57
96 96 93 55
96 09 72 99
boukaryagana@yahoo.fr
illiaboubacar@yahoo.fr
sahabiibrahim@yahoo.fr
Mabdoulaye69@yahoo.fr
A_oumani@yahoo.fr
96 55 88 35
96 89 57 42
96 27 20 75
90 31 85 16
96 87 36 88
davidqw2001@yahoo.com
20 73 71 00
96 87 72 69
96963778/9393378
96 88 45 54
96 84 67 44
Page 43
Moumouni Ousseini
Chevu Mamadou
Salihou Boulkassim
Yayé Fatouma Habi (Ms)
Arimi Mamadou
Ministry of Water Supply (MH)
Mamoudou Adamou
MH focal point
Quality Committee
member
Issoufou Issaka
Rouscoua Boubacar
Poverty Reduction Strategy Permanent Secretariat (PS/PRS)
Aminata Takoubakaye (Ms)
PS/PRS focal point
Najim Mohamed
Ali Doungou Boubacar
DS/MEIA
CAB/MEIA
DL/MEIA
DRH/MEIA
SE/SHR/MEIA
Ousseini_moumouni@yahoo.com
chevumadou@yahoo.fr
IS/MH
mam.adamou@gmail.com
96 88 36 86
SG/MH
DEP/MH
Issakissouf@yahoo.fr
rouscoua@yahoo.fr
96 89 81 26
Resp SE/PS/PRS
Coordinator, PS/PRS
Rural Sector Administrator,
PS/PRS
Chegari Abderahmane
Administrator, PS/PRS
Abdoulaye Yayé
PS/PRS Member
Tawaye Aboubacar
Officer responsible for
institutional issues
Other Ministries represented at the meeting of SGs on April 22, 2009
Oumarou Massalabi
SG/MME
Mahaman Zaky
SG/MCRIR
Colonel Yayé Garba
SG/MDN
Karimou Gazibo
SG/ENAM
Ali Salifou Hadiza (Ms)
SGpi /MIA/NE
Ibrahima Halidou
SG/MFRS
Guéro Mahamadou
SG/MJS
Idi Serki Kalilou
SG/MPJE/REP
Maiga Younoussa Tondy
SG/MESSR/T
Thiari Falmata
IGS
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
96 42 42 14
96 87 97 51
96 74 53 34
Om_arimi@yahoo.com
bouramin@yahoo.fr
doungouali@yahoo.fr
chegari@ADPRS-niger.ne
Anza_abdoulaye@yahoo.fr
tawaye@ADPRS-niger.ne
20 72 21 32
20 72 21 52
20 72 20 36
96 98 34 74
20 72 21 52
omassalabi@yahoo.fr
20725951/52
yayeg@hotmail.com
Gazibo.karim@yahoo.fr
Hsalifou2004@yahoo.fr
Page 44
96408283
96595131
20 73 94 42
20 72 20 74
20 73 73 51
96 97 67 04
96 40 58 22
Other State bodies invited to the workshops: Development Analysis and Forecasting Unit (CAPED) and High Commission for State Modernization
(HCME)
Aoudi Diallo
CAPED
dialloaoudi@yahoo.fr
Sangaré Alkasserim Saadatou
CAPED
96 59 63 75
20 75 55 26
Mahamoud Elgou
SG/HCME
mahelgou@yahoo.fr
Attaher K Ibrahim
HCME/DDA
kamedibrahim2@yahoo.fr
20 20 34 51
Bawa Gaoh Ousmane
HCME
iicgaoh@gmail.com
Partners
Janet Owens
Quality Committee
World Bank
jowens@worldbank.org
96 82 79 71
member
Moussa Haladou
CIDA
haladou@cdaniger.ne
20 75 30 42/43
Maria Bardolet
Quality Committee
UNDP
maria.bardolet@undp.org
97 00 14 56
member
Consultants
Boureima Gado
Consultant
boureima_gado@yahoo.fr
Samer Hachem
Consultant
samer.hm@gmail.com
97 49 90 55
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 45
7.5
CAP-Scan Journal
Pillar
1. Leadership
Dimension
Question
Score
1.1
Commitment
1.1. What is the
decisionmakers' level of
commitment to
a management
for
development
results
approach?
2.00
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Argumentation
 The Government has made RBM a managerial principle which is part of various
strategies, such as ADPRS, SDR, PDS and PDDE, and of major programs, such as
PEMFAR 2 and PIMAP.
 PRS has been adopted by the Cabinet.
 Terms of reference (ToR) make reference to RBM.
 RBM training programs have been organized.
 Public financial authorities engage in performance-based operation.
 The Civil Service Act and Regulations make reference to RBM.
 RBM has not been specifically introduced by an official act.
 There is no monitoring and evaluation of ToR.
Conclusion: Although RBM is regularly referred to in national strategies and even
some laws, no specific act or decision has been issued to express official commitment
to RBM in all areas concerned, as has been the case in other countries (for instance,
Canada).
Page 46
1.2 Clarity and
articulation of
development
orientations
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
1.2 To what
extent does
national
planning clearly
present the
development
objectives and
form the frame
of reference for
Government
action?
2.50
 Objectives, impacts and results are clearly articulated in the ADPRS.
 ADPRS indicators are measurable (selection criterion).
 Responsibility is broadly shared as a result of the participatory process.
 Not all sector frameworks are fully consistent with ADPRS. A study in view of
alignment is in progress.
 The timing of the review procedures of the various program frameworks is not
concerted. This is one of the causes of inconsistency between frameworks. For
instance, some sector frameworks are older than the ADPRS. As a result, crosscutting themes, such as decentralization or gender, are in certain cases insufficiently
taken into account in some sectoral strategies.
 Result chains can be improved and not all indicators may be measured.
 Although the major national priorities are explicit, the priorities of ADPRS
components as a whole can be made clearer.
Conclusion: The considerable effort put forth in relation to the ADPRS is recognizable
at the clarity of results frameworks and proposed measurable indicators. However,
lack of coordination in the timing of the various program frameworks is currently
causing inconsistencies. Moreover, except for major national priorities, such as health
or education, the definition of priorities for the various components can be improved.
Lastly, as part of the review of certain sectoral strategies, efforts should be made to
clarify the results framework and indicators concerned. Transition is in progress.
Page 47
1.3 To what
extent do civil
society
organizations
and the private
1.3
sector
Participation of
participate by
non-State
the side of the
actors
Government as
partners in
achieving
development
results?
1.4 Do the
management
practices of
1.4
senior officials
Responsibility
of the
and delegation
Administration
at the level of
encourage the
senior officials
development,
of the
involvement
Administration
and motivation
of civil
servants?
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
3.00
 The ADPRS has been formulated through a participatory process (civil society
organizations SCOs were represented in all theme groups).
 All stakeholders (civil society, the private sector and State bodies) cooperate in
order to attain the MDGs and interact through frameworks for concerted action (for
instance, a joint committee comprising the State, NGOs and TFPs since 1996-1997,
CCOAD, ROSEN).
 Civil society capacity-building activities are in progress (for instance, RECA).
 Participation is not yet considered as standard procedure for the formulation of
public policies.
 The effectiveness of participation is limited by the degree of availability of
information provided by the Administration and by civil society capacity (in terms of
skills and resources), which varies from sector to sector
Conclusion: The participatory process is currently an accepted method, encouraged in
the country.
ln certain sectors, however, full and effective participation is curbed by factors related
to civil society capacity and to support from the Administration in terms of information.
Transition has been completed.
1.25
 Senior officials are aware of the need for a culture of delegation of authority (for
instance, a decree on the assignment and delegation of responsibilities was issued in
1987).
 Initiatives aimed at delegation remain limited in scope (for instance, authority has
been delegated by Ministers to Secretaries General for signing decisions but little at
other levels).
 Formal descriptions of post responsibilities is limited (currently, up to division level
and only in some sectors).
Conclusion: Although the necessity of delegation and responsibility is acknowledged,
delegation is still not part of the culture of the Administration, save for some isolated
instances and formal delegation at high hierarchical levels. Experimentation has
begun.
Page 48
1.5 To what
extent do the
Administration
and the
1.5 Integration regional
of the
authorities
decentralization operate
dimension
coherently with
a view to
achieving
development
results?
1.6 Change in
management
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
1.6 To what
extent has the
Government
provided itself
with the means
necessary for
addressing
capacitybuilding as a
genuine project
for in-depth
change in the
Administration
and its
practices?
1.50
 Some municipalities have local development plans, which are taken into account at
department level, especially in the areas of health and education.
 That practice is limited to certain sectors and, in some cases, occurs at
deconcentrated, rather than decentralized, levels of administration.
 Regional authority budgets lack transparency with regard to the budgetary
framework and development budget allocations.
 Resources at decentralized levels are lacking and, when available, are below
resources at deconcentrated levels.
Conclusion: Decentralization is currently in process in the country. Regarding RBM,
objectives are taken into consideration at the decentralized level in some isolated
cases but, on the whole, that level lacks budgetary transparency. Experimentation is
in progress.
 The shift to RBM is an urgent concern.
 RBM training programs are organized with a view to bringing about and spreading
that change.
 Capacity-building programs for priority sectors include a RBM component. The
revised PIMAP is in the process of adoption.
 A national capacity-building program, including a development management
component, is being drawn up.
2.00
 As a result of lack of resources and evaluation, there are instances of resistance to
the attainment of the objectives that have been set.
 The change has not been addressed in a specific and comprehensive manner.
Conclusion: Although it is part of strategies and regular activities, RBM is not yet
regarded as a profound change in the culture of the Administration. Experimentation
has been completed.
Page 49
1.7 Human
resources
management
1.7 To what
extent does
RBM affect
management
practices at the
individual level?
1.00
 RBM training activities are organized at the central and regional levels, including
various ministries, SCOs, and other bodies (such as INS, PS/PRS and the National
Assembly Parliamentary Administration), programs and projects
 RBM training modules organized at the international level are recognized and there
is a core group of trainers.
 Individual performance is assessed in the health sector and INS.
 A census of civil servants has been held. A recruitment plan exists at the national
level.
 There are no RBM training centers or areas of study.
 Individual assessments are practiced to a very limited extent.
Conclusion: Human resources management should be updated, particularly through
the introduction of individual performance assessments over and above the few cases
mentioned. RBM training is available but not yet organized in the form of an area of
study. This issue constitutes a strategic thrust in the PIMAP. Awareness has been
completed.
1.89
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 50
2. Monitoring
and
Evaluation
2.1 National
planning
geared to
development
results
2.1 Are public
policies subject
to a regular and
sustained
monitoring and
evaluation
process that
permits
adjustments in
performance
objectives?
3.00
 A strategic ADPRS framework linked to relevant results and indicators has been
formulated as a result of the PRS assessment.
 A national monitoring and evaluation plan has been drawn up within the ADPRS,
on the basis of a monitoring and evaluation assessment.
 Monitoring and evaluation plans also exist with respect to sectoral strategies (inter
alia, Health Development Plan (PDS) monitoring and evaluation guide, Ten-Year
Education Development Program (PDDE) monitoring unit, DEP and Statistics
Department (DS) inter-ministerial unit for SDR, and National Commission for
Sustainable Development (CNDD) , a monitoring and evaluation body for the National
Environmental Plan for Sustainable Development (PNEDD)).
 There is an annual report on ADPRS.
 Statistics directorates operate in all Ministries and there are relevant units in INS
and NigerInfo.
 Not all sectoral indicators are available. Some areas (such as youth and
governance) are not covered.
 Not all ADPRS indicators measure impact. Some relate to products. They do not
always provide targets for all sectors.
 As a result of inadequate resources, inter alia, not all monitoring and evaluation
units are operational in the various departments.
 A survey on evaluation capacities (conducted in 2007) showed that there is no
systematic assessment of public policies.
Conclusion: Clearly, a monitoring and evaluation practice has been launched,
particularly in the framework of the ADPRS. However, that practice must be
strengthened by ensuring the operation of the units concerned and the
standardization of the tools used. Transition has been completed.
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 51
2.2 To what
extent does the
Administration
2.2 Capacity for possess
monitoring and adequate
evaluation of capabilities for
public policies ensuring
monitoring and
evaluation of
public policies?
2.3 To what
extent does the
Administration
have adequate
tools, IT in
2.3 Information particular, to
system and
ensure
decisionmonitoring and
support tools evaluation of
public policies
and use of
factual data in
decisionmaking?
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
2.50
 DGEPD and INS have been set up with cross-cutting jurisdiction.
 DEP and DS units have been set up in every Ministry.
 Many Ministries lack an adequate number of monitoring and control specialists.
 Although relevant training activities have started, the comprehensive monitoring
and evaluation capacity-building program at the ADPRS level is in progress and not
yet fully operational.
Conclusion: The units have been set up but the capabilities need to be strengthened.
A program to that effect is in the process of becoming operational. Transition is in
progress.
 Information systems exist in some departments, including, for instance, the
National Health Information System (SNIS), NigerInfo and the livestock and cereals
Market Information Systems (SIM).
 Inter-connections are unavailable between sectors and do not always exist within
the same Ministry (see, for instance the MEF information system). Achieving
consistency among the various databases and collection systems is difficult.
 There is no master plan at the Government level.
2.00
Conclusion: Information tools and systems exist but are not integrated into a
comprehensive data processing scheme, including adequate inter-connections for
ensuring information accuracy and consistency. Experimentation has been
completed.
Page 52
2.4 Has the
administration
put to use
2.4 System for means for
measuring user measuring
satisfaction
service quality
in order to
assess user
satisfaction?
2.5
Administration
performance
geared to
development
results
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
2.5 To what
degree is
factual
information
from monitoring
and evaluation
used to improve
the
Administration
for better
development
results?
1.25
 There have been isolated instances of this practice (for instance, in the form of a
2006 national survey on the satisfaction of educational service beneficiaries).
 The Cabinet has decided that user complaint boxes are to be installed in the
Ministries.
 The boxes are not yet operational.
 Measuring user satisfaction is still the exception.
Conclusion: The need for quality service is acknowledged but measuring the quality in
question is so far a rare practice. Experimentation has started.
1.00
 Isolated studies have been carried out in order to improve services provided by the
Administration, such as, for instance, access to health care for children up to five
years old.
 Department management, budgets and reports still focus on resources and
activities.
 Despite the establishment of HCME, no comprehensive measures have been
taken. PIMAP 2, containing such measures, is expected to be examined by the
Cabinet.
Conclusion: Department management is still focused on resources and activities,
without actually addressing performance. Awareness.
Page 53
2.6 What is the
level of
harmonization
2.6
among TFPs on
Harmonization national
of information reporting
requests by
procedures and
TFPs
on the
organization of
joint missions
and studies?
2.00
 There exists a framework for partnerships with TFPs and a set of common
indicators at the overall level and for some specific sectors.
 A process for designing a standard reporting format has been launched in
accordance with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
 Financial reports are drawn up according to an MEF format and a common basic
structure has been adopted for sector reports to partners.
 As a rule, reports are drawn up in the formats required by the partners, especially
at project level.
Conclusion: There is ongoing dialogue on reporting format standardization but no
uniform rules or approach are yet available. Experimentation has been completed.
1.96
3.
Accountability
and
Partnerships
3.1
Independence
of Justice and
of the higher
Audit
Institutions
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
3.1 To what
extent do the
control
institutions
(inter alia, the
Court of
Auditors) and
the judiciary
function
independently
of the executive
branch?
2.00
 The relevant structures exist (for instance, the Public Procurement Regulation
Agency (ARMP) and the Court of Auditors).
 These structures are not yet fully operational (this applies, for instance, to the Court
of Auditors).
 As a result, not all institutional obstacles to independence have been eliminated.
Moreover, a series of related reforms and measures (for instance, the Justice and
Rule of Law Support Program (PAJED) and the regulation on the status of law
officers) are in progress.
Conclusion: The independence of Justice and the higher Audit Institutions is provided
for by law but has not yet been fully implemented. There are ongoing reforms to that
end. Experimentation has been completed.
Page 54
3.2
Parliament's
role in
oversight of
Government
action
3.3 Media
independence
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
3.2 Up to what
level does the
Parliament fulfill
its role of
exercising
oversight of
Government
action,
particularly as
regards
economic
policies and
budget
allocations?
3.3 To what
degree are the
(public and
private) media,
as a whole,
able to play
effectively their
role in criticizing
the authorities?
 Government action oversight structures exist in the Parliament.
 Deputies regularly call Ministers to account.
 Fact-finding committees produce results with regard to the policies investigated (for
instance, in the cases of SONITEL and Samira mining).
 Although, where necessary, the Parliament may have recourse to external experts,
the technical capabilities and resources available are not sufficient for fully carrying
out its oversight mission.
2.75
2.75
Conclusion: The Parliament plays an important oversight and supervisory role,
thereby exerting, as many examples show, direct influence on public policies. A
number of committees have the means to use the technical expertise required by that
role. Considering the Parliament as a whole, however, the types of competence and
knowledge necessary for fulfilling that mission sustainably, regardless of the persons
in office at any given time, are not yet fully available. Transition has been completed.
 The media are independent and able to scrutinize Government action.
 The State's monopoly over the press has been tangibly reduced.
 The impact of the media on Government action includes, for instance, instances of
calling into question some public procurement contracts.
 The press lacks the technical and financial resources necessary for carrying out
certain inquiries.
Conclusion: Although attested, media independence is limited by inadequate capacity,
competence and resources necessary for thorough investigations. Transition has
been completed.
Page 55
3.4 Public
access to
results
3.5
Coordination
among TFPs
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
3.4 What is the
assessment of
the level of
public
dissemination
of information
by the
Government?
3.5 To what
extent do
Administration
mechanisms
ensure effective
coordination
among TFP
activities?
2.00
 There are public relations units in some Ministries, a Government communication
coordination center, and information directorates.
 Certain types of data are published by some Ministries or bodies, such as INS
(which publishes the price index), the customs, and the ROSEL website (which
publishes comprehensive information on the environment)
 There is no policy on the dissemination of information.
 Occasionally, there are institutionalized obstacles. For instance, a circular from the
Prime Minister's Office regulates public access to the information contained in
administrative documents.
Conclusion: Although efforts have been made to set up mechanisms designed to
promote the transparency of Government action to the public, and certain
comprehensive data are available, no effective policy or standard practices are yet
implemented for the dissemination of information. Experimentation has been
completed.
2.00
 Some priority sectors (the rural, health, education and technical training sectors)
implement coordination frameworks.
 There is a State-Donors Committee for ADPRS.
 A unit for coordination with the Aid Management Platform (AMP) is currently being
set up.
 Ministries without a programmatic approach offer no visibility as to potential
assistance.
 Not all sectoral coordination frameworks are operational (for instance, meetings are
held irregularly or the official in charge is absent).
Conclusion: Coordination takes place in some priority sectors but not in others, and it
is not promoted by any procedures implemented by the Administration as a whole.
Experimentation has been completed.
Page 56
3.6 Alignment
of partners on
national
priorities
3.6 To what
extent do the
Administration's
good MfDR
practices
ensure the
external
partners'
alignment on
national
priorities?
3.00
 Niger and TFPs participate in an alignment procedure, including such steps as an
action plan compatible with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, a code of
ethics, and a forum on aid effectiveness.
 In practice, activities depend on the availability of resources, regardless of priority
action plans (for instance, in the case of activities outside the ADPRS priority action
plan).
 There is no comprehensive policy for official development assistance (ODA).
Conclusion: Action aimed at alignment has been launched but, to this date, certain
activities are not aligned, on both the partners' and the Administration's account.
Transition has been completed.
2.42
4. Planning
and
Budgeting
4.1 Budget
consistency
with national
priorities
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
4.1 Are the
instruments of
planning
(ADPRS) and
budgeting
(MTEF and
LdF)
consistently
articulated?
2.25
 An MTEF exists in some departments (for instance, for the health sector, SDR and
PDDE).
 There exist procedures for taking priorities into consideration in preparing the
budget.
 These procedures are not understood in some sector Ministries, particularly in
relation to the budget framework. Communication is inadequate at some levels
(between MEF and other Ministries, and within Ministries), between which there is no
dialogue.
 There is no comprehensive MTEF.
Conclusion: Procedures have begun to be established for ensuring consistency
between the budget and priorities. The main priorities are taken into consideration in
drawing up the budget framework. However, these procedures must be improved in
terms of coordination, particularly when the budget framework is drawn up, in order to
build a perception common to MEF and the sectors and reduce discrepancies
between sectoral needs and the budget. Transition has started.
Page 57
4.2 Budget
preparation
based on
objectives and
results
4.2 Is budget
allocation
based on each
department's
results and
objectives,
taking into
account the
assessment of
past results?
4.3
Participation of
nongovernmental
actors in
budget
planning and
preparation
4.3 To what
extent do nongovernmental
actors
participate in
the budget
allocation
process and in
results
assessment?
4.4 Intradepartmental
coordination
4.4 Does the
preparation of
the budget
within a
department
reasonably
correspond to
objectives at
the various
levels?
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
 Performance contracts, based on well-defined objectives, exist for the health
sector.
 The investment budget is drawn up on the basis of available funding.
 In most departments, budget allocations are not a function of results.
 Generally speaking, the budget is based on available resources.
1.25
1.00
Conclusion: Generally speaking, the budget is based on available resources and
expenditure trends. Although they exist, initiatives aimed at linking the budget to
results are still very limited. Experimentation has started.
 Non-governmental actors participate in budget preparation in some Ministries (for
instance, NGOs and unions participate in preparing the health budget).
 The Parliament intervenes at the time of budget adoption, after finalization by the
Government, and not during budget preparation. In particular, it does not participate in
drawing up the budget framework.
 Generally speaking, the legal framework does not provide for civil society
participation and there are no mechanisms to that effect.
Conclusion: Non-governmental actors do not participate in drawing up the budget
framework. According to the law, the Parliament adopts the budget and may propose
amendments but, overall, this does not constitute participation in the preparation of
the budget. Conclusion: The Awareness stage is in progress.
 In some departments, there is correspondence with internal objectives (for
instance, this applies to the health sector and MDA).
 The practice in question is limited. Generally speaking, the process consists in
aggregating the budgets prepared by the various directorates.
1.50
Conclusion: Some sectors use a list of objectives in preparing the budget but recourse
to this practice remains limited. Conclusion: Experimentation is in progress.
Page 58
4.5 Intersectoral
coordination
4.5 To what
extent does
coordination on
the basis of
inter-sectoral
objectives play
a role in budget
preparation?
2.00
 Priority activities are defined in an inter-sectoral framework (for instance, at the
level of ADPRS) and involve several Ministries (for instance, with regard to family
planning and gender issues).
 Inter-sectoral coordination exists in budget preparation at the level of the rural
sector.
 Experimentation is limited to some sectors. In some cases, cooperation is restricted
to dividing up the various activities and does not include preparing the budget in
common.
 The process is difficult because of a lack in supporting instruments.
Conclusion: The inter-sectoral programmatic approach is in place at the level of SDR
but is not helped by any tools for results-based budgeting. This is not everywhere the
case, but the practice is still limited and hard to follow. Experimentation is in progress.
1.60
5. Statistical
Data
Processing
5.1 What is the
level of
implementation
of the national
strategy for the
development of
statistics?
3.25
5.2 What is the
Government’s
5.2 Data
capacity in
disaggregation
terms of data
disaggregation?
3.00
5.1 Statistics
strategy and
plan
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
 INS is responsible for the implementation of the National Strategy for the
Development of Statistics (SNDS).
 Data collection by INS and the statistics directorates in the various Ministries is
regular but of limited scope.
 Surveys are conducted on a regular basis.
 No SNDS review has taken place and the round table on financing has not yet
been held.
Conclusion: The mechanisms are in place but the system is still young, pending full
operational preparation for the SNDS. Implementation has started.
 SNDS includes disaggregation instructions and most of the surveys produce
disaggregated data.
 The level of disaggregation is not uniform and varies from sector to sector.
 Lack of resources is an obstacle to more detailed disaggregation (which currently
goes only as far as the departmental level, although greater detail is required in some
cases).
Conclusion: Although not yet uniform over all sectors, disaggregation is a common
practice. In some cases, more detailed disaggregation is necessary for effective use
of data in decision making. Transition has been completed.
Page 59
5.3 Extent of
data
5.3 Is the scope
of available
statistical data
broad enough
to measure all
indicators
related to
national
priorities?
5.4 What are
the means used
by the
5.4 Data quality
Administration
assessment
to improve the
quality of
statistical data?
5.5 Does the
Administration
have the
5.5 Capacity for
capability to
conducting and
carry out
exploiting
country-wide
country-wide
surveys and to
surveys
file and
disseminate the
findings?
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
 "Niger Info" provides information on all ADPRS and sectoral strategy indicators.
 Not all areas are covered (for instance, employment, governance, youth and
livestock breeding are not).
 Data quality level and usability remain variable.
2.50
2.00
Conclusion: The scope of statistical data now extends beyond the small number of
priority sectors but does not yet ensure full coverage commensurate with national
planning. Transition is in progress.
 INS conducts data quality control.
 Not all Ministries have access to INS for data validation. As a result, data reliability
varies.
 Although some sectors currently work in coordination with INS, INS approval is not
yet an operational procedure (but will become so as part of SNDS implementation).
Conclusion: The practice of data validation is not yet comprehensive but is expected
to be generalized through the INS approval procedure. Experimentation has been
completed.
2.25
 Annual and other period surveys (for instance, the consumption budget survey and
the National Population and Health Survey (EDSN)) are carried out.
 Survey regularity does not in all cases imply occurrence every five years.
 Not all sectors receive survey findings.
 Although an appropriate tool ("Toolkit") is available, the filing of survey results is not
systematic.
Conclusion: Surveys are carried out regularly on a trans-sector basis. However, the
filing of survey results is not yet systematic and there is room for enhancing data
dissemination and analysis. Transition has started.
Page 60
5.6 Does the
Administration
have the
5.6 Capacity for
capability to
analysis and
analyze
modeling
statistical data
for forecasting
purposes?
2.00
 A model has been developed for assistance and growth (PS/PRS, INS, CAPED
and MEF Directorate for Forecasting) and the AYEROU model is used for
macroeconomic forecasts related to the budget framework.
 Models are used infrequently and are not disseminated.
 Analysis capabilities are limited and modeling capabilities are very rare.
Conclusion: Despite some modeling examples, analysis and modeling capabilities are
still limited. There is no specific plan for developing such capabilities. Experimentation
has been completed.
2.50
Total
54.25
Average
2.08
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 61
7.6
Correspondence between CAP-Scan and other Frameworks and Documents
The following table contains a preliminary outline of instances of overlapping objectives
and/or indicators of the CAP-Scan framework and other planning documents examined.
CAP-Scan Pillars and
Dimensions
Other Existing Frameworks and Tools - Objectives and Indicators
Effective Implementation of ADPRS 20082012
Performance Indicator set for 2012
1. Leadership
Commitment
Clarity and Articulation of
Vision
PDS
PIMAP Report
- 100% of all sectors will have a sectoral
policy and a MTEF that is in line with the
objectives of the
DPRS
- Existence of an overall MTEF
- Existence of a prospective study entitled
"Niger – Vision 2030"
Participation of Non-State
Actors
Responsibility and
Delegation
Integration of the
- 100% of all regions and communes will
Decentralization Dimension have a development plan that is in line
with the objectives of
the DPRS
Strategic thrust 2: Administrative
deconcentration
Bringing the Administration to the citizens
Change in Management
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 62
Human Resources
Management
2. Monitoring and
Evaluation
National Planning Geared
to Development Results
2.3. 6. Instituting quality governance / b)
Strengthening administrative governance
- The percentage of monitoring and
evaluation reports published on time and
which lead to action will
reach 100%
Monitoring and Evaluation - Number of meetings of the coordinating
Capacity
committees that are held according to
schedule
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Strategic thrust 3: Modernization of human
resources management
- Formulating and implementing a policy for
forward-looking management of
employment and career management
- Controlling the size of the personnel and
the total wage bill of the State
- Building the capacities of the State's
human resources managers
- Developing and implementing a system for
motivating State personnel - Making the
employee evaluation system effective
5.3. Supervision and monitoring of
activities are strengthened at all levels
- Supervision execution rate at all levels
Page 63
Information Ssystem and
Decision-Support Tools
5.2. The health information system is
more effective and ensures more
efficient management of epidemics
- Intervention deadlines in cases of
epidemics
- Lethality rates for meningitis, measles
and cholera
Strategic thrust 9: Development of
institutional communication
- Providing for a Public Administration
attentive to citizens
System for Measuring User
Satisfaction
5.1. Health Ministry design and
management capacities are strengthened
-Existence of a new operational
organization chart
-Existence of an operational framework
for coordination with TFPs
Strategic thrust 1: Streamlining of units
- Stabilizing units
- Clarifying the roles and missions of
ministerial departments and other public
bodies
Strategic thrust 6: Modernization of
material resources management
- Modernizing the management of material
resources of the State
Administration
Pperformance Geared to
Development Results
Strategic thrust 8: Modernization of
administrative procedures
- Streamlining and standardizing
administrative procedures in the public and
quasi-public administrative units
Harmonization of
Information Requests by
TFPs
3. Accountability and Partnerships
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 64
Independence of Justice and 2.3. 6. Instituting quality governance / b)
Strengthening the rule of law and justice
of the Higher Audit
reform
Institutions
Parliament's Role in
Oversight of Government
Action
Media Independence
Strategic thrust 9: Development of
institutional communication
- Providing for a Public Administration
attentive to citizens
Public Access to Results
Coordination Among TFPs
Alignment of Partners on
National Priorities
- Number of parallel program and project
implementation bodies.
- Number of common procedures and
arrangements implemented.
- Number of joint missions carried out
Aid predictability increases from 74% in
2005 to 100%
- The percentage of programs in line with
the DPRS reaches 100%
4. Planning and Budgeting
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 65
Budget Consistency with
National Priorities
- 100% of all sectors will have a sectoral
policy and a MTEF that is in line with the
objectives of the
DPRS
Strategic thrust 5: Modernization of
financial resources management
- Streamlining and modernizing expenditure
implementation in order to facilitate
monitoring and control
- Ensuring that budget planning and
preparation reflect PRSP priorities and
macroeconomic objectives
Budget Preparation Based
on Objectives and Results
Participation of NonGovernmental Actors in
Budget Planning and
Preparation
Intra-Departmental
Coordination
Inter-Sectoral Coordination
5. Statistical Data Processing
Statistics Strategy and Plan
Data Disaggregation
Extent of Data
Data Quality Assessment
Capacity for Conducting
- The percentage of programs in line with
and Exploiting Countrythe DPRS reaches 100%
wide Surveys
Analysis and Modeling
Capacity
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 66
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 67
7.7
Documents Considered
7.7.1 National Planning







Accelerated Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, 2008-2012 (October
2007)
Ten-Year Education Development Program (PDDE), Second Phase: 2008-2010 —
Quality, Access and Institutional Development Components (August 2007)
Rural Development Strategy (SDR) (November 2003)
Health Development Plan (PDS), 2005-2009 (adopted by the Cabinet on February
18, 2005)
Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) — Health, 2007-2009 (June 2006)
National Reproductive Health Program (PNSR), 2005–2009 (version of June 15,
2005)
PDS Monitoring and Evaluation Guide, 2005-2010 (April 2006)
7.7.2 Studies and Analyses



Assessment of Niger's institutional mechanism for PRS monitoring and
evaluation — HASSANE IDE Adamou, NIANDOU Daouda (November 2006)
National Consultation Mission for the Review of the Comprehensive Program of
Modernization of the Administration — Final Report (draft, June 2008)
Formulation of a Comprehensive Capacity-Building Program — Concept Note
(November 2008)
7.7.3 Context Documents




Capacity Assessment — Practice Note (UNDP, June 2008)
Capacity Assessment Methodology — User Guide for National Capacity
Development (UNDG, February 2008)
Institutional Assessment and Capacity Development — Why, What and How?
(Europaid, September 2005)
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (March 2005)
Mission report CAP-Scan Niger
Page 68