1

REPORT ON TRAINING OF TRAINNERS (TOT) WORKSHOP ON THE FRAMEWORK FOR GOOD URBAN GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT OF

NIGERIA

HELD AT LAGOS AIRPORT INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, IKEJA, LAGOS STATE, NIGERIA

3 – 4 AUGUST 2010

2

Prepared by:

Prof J. B Falade, UN-HABITAT, HPM Dr Seyi Fabiyi, National Project Officer

Mr. Imran Shahryar, UN-HABITAT, intern

3

List of Acronyms

AMAC - Abuja Municipal Area Council CBO - Community Based Organization CHSUD - Centre for Housing Studies and Urban Development FCDA - Federal Capital Development Authority FCT - Federal Capital Territory FDI - Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives FGD - Focused Group Discussion FUTMIN - Federal University of Technology Minna GUG - Good Urban Governance IGSR - Institute for Governance and Social Research LG - Local Government LGA - Local Government Area MHUD - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development MOE - Ministry of Environment MPP - Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning NBS - National Bureau of Statistics NGO - Non Governmental Organization NPC - National Population Commission NTC - National Technical Committee OGC - Oslo Governance Centre PSO - Private Sector Organization Qs and As - Question and Answers SG - Statistician General TOT - Training of Trainers UNDP - United Nations Development Programme UN-HABITAT - United Nations Human Settlements Programme URP - Urban and Regional Planning

4

1. INTRODUCTION This report contains the main highlights and documentations presented at the TOT Workshop organized for stakeholders, identified consultants and representatives of beneficiary States and Local Governments and academic institutions on the application of GUG Framework developed for data capture and reporting.

The TOT Workshop, which was organized from 3rd -4th August 2010, attracted a total of 46 participants, comprising 18 representatives of the consulting firms to be engaged for data collection, one representative each from the university and the electronic media, 16 representatives of participating States and Local Government and seven members of NTC (see Annex 1).

The report is structured into 8 Sections. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the development of the GUG Framework for assessment. Section 4 described the Method employed for conducting the TOT Workshop. Section 6 deals with practical session and tasks given to the consultants working with stakeholders from the State and LGs to be assigned to them. Section 7 deals with closing remarks while Section 8 deals with highlights of the decisions reached in the TOT Workshop and the conclusion.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GUG FRAMEWORK The project on Good Urban Governance (GUG) assessment of Nigeria, supported by the Oslo Governance Centre (OGC), UNDP and UN-HABITAT, is being executed by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The National Planning Commission, the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, State Ministries responsible for housing and urban development and Local Governments are major beneficiaries of the project. The project is being implemented in 9 States and Federal Capital Territory (FCT), from which 23 urban Local Governments (LGs) have been chosen for the GUG assessment. The project goal is to strengthen national capacity in the assessment of urban governance challenges in Nigeria as a prime step towards determining follow-on programmatic and policy responses to achieving sustainable urbanization and good urban governance. It is expected that the project would be scaled-up in the near future to cover the remaining 751 Local Government areas in Nigeria. Project implementation began in May 2009, with the establishment of project management including the National Project Steering committee. One of the key outputs of the GUG Project is the carrying out of a comprehensive literature review to identify key elements of good urban governance and indicators of relevance to Nigeria and the development of a framework to be employed for field assessment. Two National consultants were engaged for this purpose. But following the shoddy work undertaken by the national consultants, project management decided to adopt stakeholders’ participation and direct involvement in the development of GUG framework that truly reflects the Nigerian situation with OGC, UN-HABITAT and UNDP providing the required technical and managerial support.

A Stakeholders workshop was held for representatives of States, Local Governments and NGOs on 20th May 2010 at Bolingo Hotel, Abuja, to brainstorm on suggested five elements of good urban governance notably Effectiveness, Participation, Accountability, Security and Equity. The Workshop, which set-up five discussion groups, one each of the five GUG Elements, to deliberate and identify indicators, was able to come up with a comprehensive list of indicators of relevance for GUG assessment in Nigeria. Representatives of OGC (notably Joachim Naheem and Ms Shipra Narangi, an international Consultant),UN-HABITAT and UNDP worked assiduously with the Project Management team and members of the National Technical Committee to successfully organize this workshop. The Workshop was a huge success as several indicators were identified and it was recommended that a follow-on

5

retreat should be organized by the members of the National technical team to fine tune the Draft Framework.

The first retreat organized by NTC to fine tune the framework was held from 28th May to 2nd June 2010 in Kaduna . Again the output from this retreat was submitted for technical review by OGC and UN-HABITAT. Based on observations on the Draft Framework a final retreat was organized for NTC members from 29 June – 2nd Jul 2010 to make final corrections and develop the Manual for the framework and methodology to be employed for the assessment. Following series of exchanges of mails on the technical reviews of the Draft GUG framework and the Manual between OGC, UNDP and UN-HABITAT and project management an agreement was reached between them on the accepted one on which the TOT Workshop was organized. Thus, the TOT was conducted on the GUG Framework and the Manual as well as other housekeeping issues related to successful conduct of the Fieldwork and reporting format of GUG assessment in the chosen LGs.

3. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TOT WORKSHOP

3.1 Goal: The goal of the TOT Workshop was to properly brief the participants on the aims and scope of the project, inform them on the elements and indictors in the GUG framework, and the methods to be employed in data collection and reporting format for GUG assessment of LGs selected for study.

3.2 Objectives The specific objectives of the TOT Workshop include:

• To brief and educate participants on the elements, indicators and variables of GUG Framework and build a common understanding of the critical terms and the project.

• To train participants on the various questions for data collection and key sources of data to build a common understanding.

• To train participants on the various methods to be employed for data collection (notably base line survey, administration of GUG Questionnaire and focused group discussion).

• To train participants on how the field-work can be adequately and efficiently managed.

• To give consultant the opportunity to have hands on experience on how to use the GUG framework for data collection through pilot study and setting group tasks.

• To take participants through the suggested structure of the report so as to build a common understanding of the reporting format.

• To provide a forum for consultants to meet with and interact with key stakeholders and such learn to begin to work together in the realization of the aims of the project.

3.3 Expected outputs of the TOT Workshop: The outputs of the TOT Workshop included:

• Participants duly informed on the nature, aims and scope of the GUG Project.

• Consensus built among participants on the GUG elements and indicators, methods to be adopted

for the study.

6

• Agreement on reporting format.

• GUG Framework pilot tested with necessary corrections made to the questions as deemed necessary and agreed by the participants.

• GUG Framework pilot-tested by consultants and stakeholders for better understanding, identification of key areas of challenges and how to manage them.

• Friendship and cooperation fostered between consultants and State and Local Government representatives to ensure smooth and hitch-free fieldwork and effective participation of stakeholders in the project at the field level.

• Agreement on Work plan for data collection and date of submission of GUG assessment report. 3.4 TOT Workshop Methodology: The programme adopted for the TOT comprised broadly: a short opening session and 3 technical presentation sessions, plenary discussions and practical exercises spread over a two day period (Annex 2).

The method employed for the delivery of the 2-day workshop included slide presentations on the five elements of the GUG Framework and elated indicators and questions, the Method of data collection and field survey process management. Each presentation was immediately followed by Qs and As session.

The workshop was facilitated by the members of National Technical Committee as resource persons including Prof J.B. Falade, Mr. Isiaka Olarewaju, Mr. Alao Mathew, Mrs. Eucharia Alozie, Mr. Balogun Adebayo and Dr Seyi Fabiyi. Mr. Imran Shahryar was the rapporteur for all the sessions.

4. OPENING CEREMONY

The Opening ceremony, Chaired by Mr Moses Olubunmi Ajayi, featured the presentations of welcome address, short-remarks, goodwill messages received from representatives of UNDP, NBS and UN-HABITAT and setting the ground rule for the TOT Workshop. Mr M. Alao on behalf of UNDP, welcomed participants noted that there were few women participants and call for a review in the selection of participants for future workshops to reflect gender balance. Other messages delivered welcomed participants and underscored the importance of the GUG project to Nigeria and the participatory approach employed for developing the framework and urge the consultants to be fully aligned with the project objectives and time frame so that the planned outputs would be realised by the end of the year. The workshop was declared open after the initial ground rules have been agreed upon by all participants.

5. TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Presentation 1: Background of GUG Project

Mr Olarewaju’s presentation on the background of the project emphasized the need for GUG assessment in Nigeria, which is borne out by the several development challenges arising from the rapid urbanization and exploding population growth and the strengthen the capacity of LGs and Metropolitan authorities to properly govern these rising number of cities effectively contribute to national economic growth. He opined that GUG assessment of Nigeria provides an opportunity to collect relevant data for policy formulations on urban governance in Nigerian cities. He highlighted the goals, objectives, expected

7

outcomes, planned outputs, execution modality, the stakeholders and the progress already made in the implementation of the GUG. According to him one of the deliverables and outputs of the project is the establishment of urban Governance Information Centre in each of the selected LGs and FCT. He also emphasized that project implementation started in May 2009 and that the TOT Workshop is a key stage to train urban governance assessors on the framework and tools to be employed in GUG assessment. He reiterated the need to fast-track the implementation of the project because the project is schedule to end in December 2010. 5.2 Presentation 2: GUG Framework: Principles and Indicators Arc (Mrs.) Eucharia Alozie, in her presentation provided a brief account and a rundown of the five adopted GUG elements including Effectiveness, Participation, Equity, Security and Accountability. Participants raised several questions which focused on providing more clarifications on the how the adopted indicators were derived, the role of NGOs in the assessment, data aggregation and analysis of staff of LGs, need to agree on the focus of the study: is it on urban or LGs which in turn contains both urban and rural areas and subsequent use of information to be collected. Derivation of GUG Framework: Participants were informed that the indicators were derived essentially through a participatory process in which three stakeholders meeting have been organizing taking cue partly from the seven norms of good governance adopted at the GUG Launch for Nigeria in April 2001 and the five elements agreed upon by the Inter-UN Agency Summit held in New York in October 2001 and partly from existing studies on and practices of good governance generally in the country. Role of NGOs in GUG Studies: Participants were also informed that GUG Framework recognized the role of NGOs as they will involved in data collection and FGD. Consideration of urban-rural dichotomy in selection of case study areas: Participants also informed that urban-rural divide in the country is more academic than conceptually and statutorily defined for data collection. Although NBS has adopted methods of sampling households for field survey in the country, the urban-rural divide is still subject to academic controversy. The GUG framework refrained from adopting any definition of urban area. It was decided that the GUG assessment will be based on LG boundaries because there is no spatial definition of urban areas, which makes data aggregation difficult. Focus should be specifically on LGAs, not just “cities”. The former are clearly defined in terms of area and governance responsibilities. Noting that urbanization is rapid in Nigeria, the city’s capacity to accommodate the excessive immigrants from the rural areas was considered crucial and that this factor should be taken into consideration as urban governance may be significantly affected by incursion of rural dwellers into the cities. Therefore it would be necessary to provide accurate profiling of population in the GUG assessment and to relate this to service provision such as schools, health centres, recreational facilities etc. Aggregation of data on LG human resources: Participants suggested that the measurement of the human resources capacity of the LG should include qualifications of the staff and assessors should also conduct job matching to assess if qualified people are put in positions. Subsequent use of data collected: As to subsequent use of data participants were informed that they would be made available to the public through the internet and published documents. Information Centers would be set up in each city, and at the NBS and data would be made available online through the OGC portal (www.gapportal.org).

8

5.3 Presentations of GUG Elements as Modules 5.3.1 Effectiveness This module, as presented by Dr Seyi Fabiyi, provided definitions of key terms in the areas of effectiveness, tour of the indicators and detailed presentations of the questions. According to him, ‘effectiveness is one of the key elements of GUG adopted for assessment of Nigerian cities’. In principle effectiveness relates to achieving efficiency in public service delivery by constituted authorities and should be people-centered. The 5 indicators selected to measure effectiveness included: vision statement/strategic plan, service delivery, subsidiarity, resource mobilization and management, and Local Government capacity. He informed participants that the goal of the GUG assessment is to objectively assess the governance of LGs and therefore and assessors should not engage in un-necessary critiques of government in power or the urban administrator. He noted that since we are drawing close to election period Chairmen of LGs could resist the process of assessment if they perceived that the assessor’s intention would be to criticize them. What budget to measure: The follow-up discussions suggested the need to be exact as what budget of the LGs would be measured under resource mobilization. This is because too often, money budgeted for project by LGs are diverted for other purposes, coupled with the fact that LGs do not often keep a good track of their spending and outcomes. The consultants to carry out the field work were advised not to limit themselves to the items listed in the questionnaire but to probe further into related when necessary to get to the root of the data being sought. Consultants were to note that the questions in the framework should be taken as the minimum to obtain the required data and information. Consultants should endeavour to collect more data from the field and use the same in urban profiling section of their report. 5.3.2 Participation This module on participation was presented by Prof. J.B Falade, provided a concise definition of the key terms as defined in the Manual for the GUG, philosophy of the GUG framework, especially the relationship between elements, indicators and questions set in the Framework, and a detailed presentation of the elements, the indicators and questions and an elaborate identification of sources of data and information to be collected and key issues to report on participation. According to him, effective participation required that all people should be involved in decision-making affecting them, either directly or indirectly. Participation too often is based on freedom of speech and it can be endorsed and facilitated by passing enabling legislation on participatory approaches to development and promotion of the freedom of expression and the media freedom. Effective participation also required stakeholders to have the skills to contribute effectively to decision-making and their capacities needed to be enhanced for doing so. Participation required promoting civic engagement, consensus building, and partnership building (including public-private partnerships, and with NGOs/CBOs) which are two key indicators defined for GUG assessment. Thereafter he went through all the questions and provided a detailed Outline of the various sources of data for each section and key issues to report on. Conduct of referendum: The question relating to the conduct of referendum was debated in that this country has never witnessed any referendum and the use of the term would be appropriate. It was resolved that we need to replace referendum with Town Hall meeting which though may be informal but is more likely to happen in Nigerian context. However Opinion survey can be regarded as referendum. Determination of who is an indigene and who is not? The question was raised on Citizenship as a measuring variable and that it would be difficult to know who is an indigene and a non-indigene in the Nigerian city’s context. Indigene relates to the various tribes that may live in an urban or LG setting.

9

Interesting enough there are spatial distribution of indigenes in the Nigeria urban setting and anyone not from the LG or born in the LG is a non-indigene. It was resolved that it is possible to distinguish whether or not an ‘indigenous’ people are involved in governance if the right questions are asked. Inclusion of more indicators to measure participation: Participants sought that more indicators should have been suggested to measure participation and that the two mentioned were not enough. The presented informed participants that participation as an element cuts across other elements and that in fact variables to measure participation can be found under effectiveness, security, accountability and equity. The elements of GUG should not be treated as separate and stand alone as there are interrelated and considerable overlaps exist. Participants were worried whether LGs indeed practice participatory governance in true sense of the word. Regardless of the level reached by LG in the areas of participation and other elements of GUG, it was resolved that the results of GUG assessment would propel the LGs to be more transparent, and engage the public in critical decision making. Data to be completed would need to be comparable and should be gathered from similar sources by all assessors. Consultants must ensure that comprehensive and accurate data are collected and field note book on data were well-kept and submitted to GUG Project Management. 5.3.3 Equity Arc (Mrs.) Eucharia Alozie, took a cue from the end notes of module II presentation and highlighted the definitions of equity, detailed descriptions of the six selected indicators for measuring equity. According to her equity relates to impartial or just treatment. It relates to participation, ensuring that no members of society feel excluded. Equity is a result of power-sharing. Access to basic urban services must be provided to all citizens on equitable basis. She went on to provide a detailed presentation and discussion of selected six indicators which included pro-poor policy; citizens’ charter; provision for informal businesses; gender equity; access to education; and human rights and rule of law. The discussion highlighted the following: The dichotomy between girl child and boy child in school enrolment: With regard to access to education (EQ5.3), participants observed that in some states the problem of access to education to girl child is much of problem in many of the Northern States, whereas in Anambra state the reverse is the case. It was resolved that the question was to be rephrased to include boy/girl child. Measurement of equitable distribution of basic services: It was observed that the number of schools or hospitals etc. provided in an LG may not be enough to accurately measure equitable distribution of these facilities. Participants suggested the need to be more qualitative rather than quantitative based on population share and structure of the city. Another consideration is to measure spatial distribution s well as ward distribution of facilities as well as time taken to reach these facilities by walking. Prevalence v. harmful traditional practices: Participants observed that the prevalence of harmful traditional practices should be examined and not existence of these practices. Participants also stressed the need to be clear on what are tagged harmful practices as opinions differed on the subject matter. However, it was resolved that any traditional practices that do not stand the tests of the rule of law, equity, transparency, fairness, etc. and amount to abuse of human rights is harmful. Attention of participants were drawn to several cases of harmful tradition practices in the area of child abuse, widowhood, female genital mutilation, pouring of acid on offenders without killing etc Fair treatment or just treatment: Participants observed that the issue of ‘fair treatment’ is nebulous and could mean different things to different people. The measure of unfair trial by traditional institutions and religious bodies was questioned as these could be alternative dispute resolution mechanism, but the need to adopt best practices was emphasized which involve conventional law courts. Traditional law can be fine, but their fairness is often questionable.

10

Availability of data on women who voted in the last election: While some participants posited that data on number of women who voted in the last election could not be obtained, majority agreed that Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) could provide the data on request. 5.3.4 Accountability Prof J. B Falade in presenting the module on accountability provided the definition of key terms, indicators and detailed description of the indicators and related questions. In principle, promoting good governance required that governments are accountable to their citizens. Generally, an organization should be accountable to the people who will be affected by its actions. Accountability cannot be achieved without transparency and rule of law. Transparency required availability and clarity of information. Lack of transparency and accountability could lead to corruption. He went to provide a detailed description of the six indicators for measuring accountability including Transparency and free flow of information; Mechanisms for performance measurement; Elimination of corruption; Independent audit; Code of conduct; and Citizens’ demand for accountability. He made elaborate presentation on the various sources of data to be collected. Need to probe beyond yes/no responses: Consultants should rely on secondary data sources and documented evidences rather than yes no responses from Local government officials Provision of False information by LG: Questions that probe whether the LG uses its press or other media outfit to promote false information should be included in the framework Use of FGDs: FGDs should be used to confirm and uncover areas where LG presented false information including corruption 5.3.5 Security The Module on Security was presented by Mr. Matthew Alao. His presentation emphasized that security is an inalienable right to life and key to sustenance of human existence. He made detailed presentations of the selected indicators and formulated questions for measuring security including Capacity for effective policing; Rate of crime; Environmental security measures; Conflict resolution measures and Tenure security. In the following questions and answer session More variables to measure security: Participants suggested many variables that could be used for measuring security such as ease of movement within the city, overcrowding and confidence in LG administration. Participants were told that it was with great difficulty to reduce the indicators to numbers presented in the GUG Framework. It was the decision of project management not to do everything in this novel GUG assessment in the country. However, it suggested that these additional variables could be made part of issues to be investigated at the FGDs to be conducted.

LG’s capacity to provide data on security: Participants observed that since Local governments are not responsible for security (Police) they may just refer the consultants to national level data which may be broadly disaggregated. Data should be sourced from the Police Stations and published data sources, especially National and State Statistical Year Books.

5.4 Focus Group Discussion Presentation:

Prof J. Falade presented short lecture of focus group discussion for the GUG assessment. He enumerated the questions that could be asked for each of the indicators where FGD responses could be used either to provide data or to corroborate/confirm other data sources.

11

During the questions and answers session several principles for conducting an effective FGD emerged which included the following:

(i) Consultants should go beyond yes/no answer to discussion of some issues such discussion

on vision statement to examine other related issues such as how relevant, achievable and sustainable are the vision statement of the local government.

(ii) FGD should not be treated simply as questions and answers requiring either yes or no answers but questions Qs & As must be issue based free discussions.

(iii) Some of the issues listed under FGDs would serve as the main sources of data and therefore all issues deserve adequate attention and priority treatment.

(iv) Consultants should prepare a comprehensive interview guide that should be used to conduct the FGDs.

(v) Consultants should ensure that participants at the FGD are drawn from all key stakeholders.

(vi) Consultants should appoint a facilitator who would guide the discussions and appoint reporters for the FGD’s write-up. Consideration should be given to the use of taping the discussions or video-recording the proceedings of the FDG.

(vii) FGDs are flexible therefore consultants and the NTC members would need to discuss and agree on common guide to FGD.

(viii) FGDs should not be done on the first visit, but thereafter because it would be easier to identify the key stakeholders.

(ix) Reports should be shared with stakeholders afterwards. It shouldn’t take more than 1 day.

The Consultants requested for more guidance on the conduct of FGD. To this end, Prof Falade offered to include more hints on the conduct and reporting of FGDs. 5.5 Computation of GUG Index Dr Seyi Fabiyi presented the procedures for computing the GUG Index based on Chapter 7 of the Manual for the Conduct of GUG. His presentation highlighted the following points: • That a total of 16 Indicators have been selected and weighted for computing the GUG index.

• With regards to weighting, Effectiveness has 25 points, Equity 25 points, participation 20 points;

Security 20 points, and Accountability 10 points.

• He presented a run-through of the methods for calculating the GUG Index for each of the elements.

The award of bonus of 3 points: Participants observed that weighting of the indicators for Effectiveness of the GUG Framework did not add up to 25mark but 23 marks. The issue of giving 3 bonus points as suggested by the presenter was hotly contested and the scientific basis of such a decision was not easily understood. It was agreed that the computation should be based on 97 points and not 100 as presented. True measure of female representation at LG: Participants observed that female representation in LGs may not reflect true marginalization of women because there may be more female at low level cadre in the LG and very few at the decision making level Old LGs might perform better than new ones: Old LG may be rated very high because of the measurement used in the computation. The frameworks should be reworked to compensate for new LGs as they might not have the capacities for good urban governance. The balance of the argument, was that

12

the present LGs dated to 1991 and before this time, the country was essentially under military rule and the notion of good governance only began as from 1995, when Nigerian began to democratize governance in the country. 5.5 Household Survey After a concise recap of day two events, participants were welcomed into day 2 events. This recap was followed by the presentation on Household survey by Mr. Olarewaju. His presentation underscored the nature of household survey, its objectives and the key variables on which data would be collected. The Household survey would be carried out to extract data on respondents’ perception of and involvement in the good governance of their area. He gave a rundown of the key elements of the survey, and the types of data required. It hoped that in future the key issues being investigated would be incorporated into the General Household Survey of the NBS. Data would be collected on various socio-economic characteristics of the households from the head of household (or other responsible adult if head of household is not available). In each LG, ten Enumeration Areas (EAs) and ten households would be surveyed in each EA. This gives a total of 100 households per LGA. Field personnel would include interviewers and a supervisor. Quality control would be provided by adequate training of field personnel and monitoring of their field operations by senior staff of NBS. Data processing and interpretation will be done by NBS, and then passed on to consultants for final report. Finalization of the Household Questionnaire: Participants observed that the questionnaire framework for Household survey was still in progress. The questionnaire contains a lot of gaps and this would be addressed by NBS. The presenter was advised to clean up the household questionnaire

Use of Random Sampling: Participants suggested that enumeration areas should be selected using random sampling or any other methods adopted by NBS in their normal survey. Data sought: Participants observed that the providing data on Name of respondents is not vital to analysis. But the presenter said this would be necessary for monitoring purposes 5.6 Process management for Field Data Collection

Process management for field data collection was presented by Dr Seyi Fabiyi. He specified how consultants would conduct themselves in the LGA in order to secure maximum support from all the stakeholders and acquired necessary data from responsible agencies. He offered the following suggestions for a successful conduct of GUG in the selected LGs. • Good understanding of the GUG Framework and suggested methods for data collection. Consultants

should be familiar with the local area, and of survey techniques.

• Consultants should undertake Courtesy visit to political head of LG, and schedule a stakeholders meeting to inform them about the GUG assessment and use these meetings to secure their supports for the exercise.

• Consultants would be required to carryout an elaborate desk study and to collect and request for relevant information and documents from all government institutions and other sources. Several documents may be sourced to get a range of information for each of the indicators

• Relevant topical issues and questions should be developed to promote free discussion, and focus on women’s groups, youth groups, and men’s groups.

• NGOs could also be engaged to find out more information.

13

Guidelines on conduct of FGD: Participants requested for more guidelines on the FGDs. The participants were informed that this request was already noted and that the guidelines had been produced for circulation to participants. Inclusion of traditional rulers in the courtesy call: Traditional rulers should also be consulted as well as the political heads. Use of qualified persons in the conduct of FGD: Consultants should ensure that they use qualified personnel in the conduct of the assessment. NTC believed that the selected consultants have the competencies to conduct productive FGDs. They should also be well qualified to carry out interviews. The consultants would however be closely monitored to ensure that they capture the right data. Good representation of stakeholders in FGDs: Consultants should ensure that all key stakeholders are represented in the FGD to get a rich discussion and response to the various issues. Nevertheless, the number of participants at FGDs should be small based on the ease of gathering them together in a place, but consultants are advised to keep the number small. Avoid provocative questions: Care should be taken not to ask sensitive questions which may cause frictions in the community. Duration of Fieldwork: Consultants will hopefully be engaged in the coming few weeks, and should submit their reports by the end of October, latest. Division of labour: While the NBS will conduct household survey, the consultants will conduct LG surveys and FGDs. 5.6 Guidelines and format for Reporting

Prof Falade made a detailed presentation of the reporting format identifying the various chapters and subsections under each (Annex 3). Broadly the report divides into the following:

• Introduction – should be done in a standard format to cover all the basic information.

• Baseline survey, as outlined by NBS data which would be given to the consultants. Gives the background to the data.

• GUG assessment – with a chapter devoted to each of the 5 key Elements of GUG. All relevant information should be provided. The information collected under FGD should be used in the appropriate sections under each GUG Elements/indicators.

• GUG Index.

• Challenges and Opportunities of GUG in Nigeria.

• Recommendations and Conclusions – this part of the project is important, because it will guide future steps.

• Appendices

• Bibliography.

14

Reporting of FGDs: Discussion ensued on separate chapter to deal with FGDs. Opinion was divided and the consensus was that information collected under FGDs should be an input into the rest of the findings, not just as a stand-alone section or separate chapter. FGD should ideally be done by a sociologist. Computation of GUG Index: It was decided that the GUG index could be computed after other data gatherings have been completed. The index could be computed through data sourced from LAREC, FGD and Household survey. The GUG index would be visited by the NTC to come up with the final scores. 6 PRACTICAL SESSIONS 6.3 Assignment of tasks Dr Seyi Fabiyi assigned the different tasks to be undertaken by consultants during the practical sessions. One of the objectives of the practical session was to link the consultants with the focal points in the participating states and local governments to undertake the practical sessions on data collection using the GUG Framework. This would enable them to discuss preliminary issues on the implementation of the assessment in the respective LGs. The assignment on pilot-testing the GUG framework required that the consultants:

1. Use the Framework to collect data from the representatives of the allocated LG and States.

2. Discuss the modalities for obtaining information from the focal person from state and LG.

3. Discuss potential challenges to data collection.

4. Identify Key actors to be interviewed.

5. Identify groups for FGD.

6. Discuss the prospect of Town Hall Meeting.

7. Prepare a draft inception report based on the highlights of the meeting.

The consultants were allocated to local governments and were divided into groups for discussions. Each team of consultants was asked to present the key finding and potential challenges in their LGs

6.2 Group Presentations Prof JB Falade Chaired the Group presentation. The following section is the highlights of the Group Presentations: 6.2.1 Presentation by Molaj Consultants

Representatives of Molaj Consultants were assigned to work with representatives of Onitsha North and Onitsha South LGs. Anambra State Ministry of Housing & Urban Development is active, and will allow consultant to have access to necessary information. They expect a smooth sailing exercise. Challenges to data collection – Taking cue from previous experience working in the city the representatives of Molaj Consultants expressed fear that some local government officials and

15

stakeholders might ask for money before they provide information. Security is also a major challenge in Onitsha. LG chairmen are not elected, were appointed. 6.2.2 Presentation by Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives Representative of FDI worked with their counterparts from Lagos Island and Apapa LGs. The highlight of their presentation included the following:

• Major urban challenges as identified included transportation and waste management.

• The LGs have a good information database for consultants, including a website. Also a number of

different data and information sources.

• The State has a few pro-poor and gender equality programmes.

• LG is audited internally.

• Stakeholders include LG chairman, NGOs & CBOs, media, youth groups, religious groups, etc.

• Town Hall meetings are regularly conducted in the two local governments. 6.2.3 Romis Consultants

Representatives Romis Consultants worked with stakeholders from Surulere and Mushin LGs – The consultants found the questionnaire easy to administer. Highlights of their presentation include the following:

• Sources of information included LG officials, treasury office, State Ministries.

• Challenges identified included willingness of officials to give information; LG chairmen should be able to provide information.

• Key stakeholders include LG staff, market women, CBOs, businesses.

• The LG is conversant with conducting Town Hall meetings regularly and therefore it could a medium for the conduct of FGD.

6.2.4 Presentation by FARIBS CONSULTS

Representatives of Faribs Consults were assigned to Akure North and Akure South LGs. The Consultants agreed that broadly the questionnaire is useable but expressed some concern on the ambiguity of some questions including definition of fair trial

• Stakeholders to be contacted include LG, traditional institutions, police, academic institutions, CBOs, NGOs.

• Questionnaire could be translated into local language if necessary, • LG officials are not elected.

6.2.5 Presentation by JOACHIM ASSOCIATES

Representatives of Joachim Associates were assigned to work with their counterparts from Owerri Municipal and Owerri North LGs. It was agreed that Questionnaire seems generally workable. In addition both Imo State and beneficiary LGs and their staff would make necessary information available to the consultants. Other issues presented included:

16

• Access to the local people for FGD may be very problematic

• Consultant requested for further clarifications on what is meant by emergency as indicated in the framework.

• Access to some secondary information may be difficult if responsible agency consider such information as confidential or classified

• Stakeholders: politicians, LGs, women’s groups, youth groups, etc. 6.2.6 Presentation by REDAC CONSULT

The consultants from REDAC worked with Gombe LG. Concerning the roles of LGs, consultant wanted more clarification on the role of LG in agricultural development, and collection of taxes.

• Some comments about women’s representation and security challenges.

• Consultants sought more clarifications on Fair trial and security challenges

• Consultants recognized there may be several challenges in the administration of the questionnaire

6.2.7 Presentation by Institute for Governance and Social Research (IGSR), Jos The representatives of IGSR worked with stakeholders from Makurdi LG ,Benue State. The members of the group said the assignment provided them with better understanding of the GUG framework by the focal persons and the consultants.

• Draft framework is useable, though a few questions are ambiguous

• The Stakeholders meeting could also be used to conduct in-depth interview in the local

government.

• Town hall meetings can be used for this project. • Challenges – non-availability of reliable and consistent data, especially from LG. Civil servants

may also not be willing to provide detailed information. Police also might not cooperate. 6.2.8 Presentation by FUTMIN VENTURES Representatives of CSHUD of the Federal University of Technology, Minna worked with their counterparts from AMAC and Bwari LGs in FCT on the practical assignment –The consultants have met with some stakeholders in the LGA previously and this could assist in conducting stakeholder workshop in the LGs. The highlights of their discussion included the following:

• High probability for consultant to access credible data from FCDA and LGs

• LGs had adopted strategic plans, but they are not disseminated.

• Challenges – the questionnaire is elaborate and may take long time to complete to complete. Also, respondents may not fully understand the questions; consultants will need to spend time to explain issues in the questionnaire.

• Key stakeholders identified included LG Chair, Head of administration, government officials, traditional heads, community leaders, youth organizations.

17

• Town hall meetings are regularly conducted by FCT and could be used to source data for the project .

6.2.9 Presentation by NEW NIGERIAN FOUNDATION (NNF)

Representatives of NNF worked with stakeholders from Lagos Mainland LG and Ikeja LG during the practical assignment. The Consultants from NNF were of the opinion that the framework can be well-applied to each LG. It is stated that relevant data to be collected are available in the LG. LGs have adopted vision statements, but not disseminated. The stakeholders required clarification on the difference between rolling plans and \ and strategic plan. LG is not able collect much revenue itself. 7 WORKSHOP CLOSING REMARKS Prof. J. Falade presented the final closing remarks, while acknowledging the fact that the workshop was generally successful in that all the planned outputs were achieved. The highlights of his closing remarks included the following that:

(i) The practical sessions and group presentations were useful and gave hope that the Framework can be successfully applied and that it would yield valuable data.

(ii) LG chairman should be the first port of call by Consultants to explain the aims, objectives and methods of the GUG assessment. It is necessary for consultants to assure enlisting the interest of the Chair in the study and assure him/her that the study is to assess urban governance systems in place in the LGs selected for study and is not to assess the performance or the personality of the Chair.

(iii) The consultants should build up on the initial advocacy visits conducted by the NTC members to

the various LGs and make use of the contacts already established by NTC during the advocacy visits

(iv) Time is of essence on the project, the consultant should do thorough job within the limited time

available.

(v) Go through the questionnaire in-depth and think about where the data will come from for each question.

(vi) The consultants should have a good work plan and submit the same with the inception report.

(vii) Contact UN-HABITAT/UNDP if clarification is needed on any issue. Better to do this than to make

mistakes in the field.

(viii) The consultants were to spend no more than 2 weeks in each LG for data collection, FGD and stakeholder workshops.

(ix) The final report should be submitted not later than 30th of October 2010.

(x) The result of the assessment should be presented to the stakeholders before the consultants

leave the LGA.

(xi) There will be national stakeholder forum early November where all consultants will present their findings and compare results.

18

8. CONCLUSION

At the end of these remarks, Dr Fabiyi thanked all for active participation in the workshop, which he said was a convincing evidence of their patriotism and commitment towards good urban governance in Nigeria. He bided them farewell and wished them safe trip back to their destinations.

Mr Olarewaju gave the votes of thanks and informed the consultants that they would be contacted in due course concerning their contracts. He urged the stakeholders from the States and LGs to work in cooperation with the consultants for a smooth sailing field exercise.

19

Annex 1: List of Attendance

Name Organization Designation

Dr Ada Okau Kogi State University Assistant Professor

Dr O. Oluwasola FDI Ibadan Senior Fellow

Professor Stanley Okafor FDI Ibadan Senior Fellow

Daniel T. Ujoh Ministry of Water Resources, Makurdi

Chief Hydro Geologist

Joachim A. C. Okafor Joachim Associates Principal

Stephen C. Ezenwa Joachim Associates Senior

M. O. Ajayi Molaj Consultant Managing Partner

Tijani Ganiat New Nigeria Foundation Programme Officer

Professor M. B. Yunusa REDARC Consultant

Jubir M. Wudil FCTA Planning Officer

I. A. Olarewaju National Bureau of Statistics National Project Coordinator

E. O. Alozie FMLHUDEV Abuja Assistant Director

Imran Shahryar UN-HABITAT, Abuja Economist

Akinrinwoye Samuel Ondo State Ministry of Physical Planning, Akure

Dir. Planning Research and Statistics

Ayo Omoregie Akure North Local Government, Itagbolu

Director Local Government Administration

Dr A. Aribigbola Faribs Consults Consultant

Folami Olakunle Faribs Consults Consultant

Oluwole Daramola Molaj Consultant Consultant

Garba Ali. A. IGSR Jos Consultant

Stephen Eliagwu IGSR Jos Consultant

Emmanuel Umaru CHSVD FUT Minna Consultant

Dr Adamu Ahmed Redarc Consultant

M. M. Gidado Gombe L.G.A. Participant

Keke Chima Permanent Secretary Permanent Secretary

Iyorkar Andrew AMAC Participant

Bayo Balogun FCDA/URP NTC Member

Tijani A. W. Lagos Island L.G. C.P.O.

Jacob O. Olayiwola Romis, Consultant Senior Consultant

20

Onwuekwe S. C. Ministry of Land, Survey and Town Planning, Awka

Permanent Secretary

Fatokin Segun Ikeja local Government Planning Officer

Dr A. M. Jinadu FUTMIN Consult Consultant

Mr. Eyitope Aremu New Nigeria Foundation Consultant

Suleiman A. Gwalah AMAC – Abuja FCT Participant

Bakare M. A. MPP and UDHS Participant

Yoosuf O. N. MEPB Planning Officer Eng T. Oyebanjo Mushin Local Government Director Works

Okeke G. N. (Mrs.) MH&UD Permanent Secretary

Ajose E. Y. (Mrs.) Lagos Mainland Local Government HOD Budget

Bello B. T. Romis Consultant Ltd Managing Consultant

Adewumi S. T. MEPB UNDP Focal Officer

Aliyu Bappa M.O.E. Gombe State Permanent Secretary (Planning)

Dr Seyi Fabiyi GUG Secretariat Abuja National Project Officer

Mr. Alao Mathew UNDP Abuja Programme Officer

Professor J. B. Falade UN-HABITAT, Abuja Habitat Programme Manager

21

Annex 2: GUG TOT WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

Time Topic/Activity Responsible person(s) DAY ONE - TUESDAY 3RD AUGUST 2010

8.00 - 10.30 am Registration of participants GUG Secretariat 10.30-11.00 am Opening/ Introduction, Setting the Stage/Ground rules Mathew Alao 11.00- 11.20 am Background, Overview of Good Urban Governance

Project. Objectives and Output of the workshop I. Olarewaju

11.20 - 11.45 am Framework( Principles and Indicators) Arc (Mrs) E. Alozie 11.45 -12.30 pm TEA BREAK All 12.30- 1.00 pm Module 1: Effectiveness Seyi Fabiyi 1.00-- 1.30pm Module 2: Participation J. Falade 1.30 - 2.30 pm LUNCH All 2.30 – 3.00. pm Module 3: Equity Alozie 23.00 – 3.30 pm Module 4: Accountability J. Falade 3.30- 4.00 pm Module 5: Security Matthew Alao 3.30 – 4.00 pm Focus Group Discussion J. Falade 4.00 – 4.30 pm Household Survey I. Olarewaju 4.30- 5.00 pm Computation of GUG index Seyi Fabiyi 5.00- 5.15 pm Closing

DAY TWO - WEDNESDAY 4TH AUGUST 2010 9.00 - 9.30 am Recap of Day One Event Participant (Lagos) 9.30-10.00 am Process Management for Field Data collection Seyi Fabiyi 10.00- 10.30 am Guidelines and format for Reporting J. Falade 10.30- 11.30 am Practical Sessions J. Falade 11.30 -12.30 noon

TEA BREAK All

12.30 -1.00 pm Practical Sessions All 1.00- 1.30 pm Group Presentations Chairman 1.30 pm- 2.30 pm LUNCH All 2.30-- 3.30pm Group Presentation Chairman 3.30- 4.00 pm Questions and Answer Session Mrs S. Yusuf 4.00- 4.15 pm Wrap up and Next Steps Seyi Fabiyi 4.15- 4.30 pm Closing J. Falade Rapporteur for all sessions: Mr. Imran Alexander Shahryar, Intern, UN-HABITAT

22

Annex 3: Proposed Structure of GUG Report

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Project location Preamble on LG’s Buy into GUG Project Project Goals and Objectives Methodology for data collection

GUG Framework Baseline survey Focussed Group Discussion Computation of GUG Index

Structure of Report PART 1: BASELINE SURVEY Chapter

To be based on the Scope of the Questionnaire PART 2: GUG ASSESSEMENT Chapter: EFFECTIVENESS

EF1. Vision statement

EF 1.1. Adoption and availability of a vision/mission statement of the LG EF 1.2. Process of preparation and adoption of vision/mission statement/strategic plan(s) EF 1.3. Use of the adopted vision/mission statement and/or strategic plan EF 1.4. Dissemination of the vision/mission statement-s and/or strategic plan.

EF2. Service delivery EF 2.1. Performance of Constitutional Roles, budget allocation and partnership EF 2.2. Clear and transparent procedures for accessing services provided LG EF 2.3. Grievance redress system

EF3. Subsidiarity EF 3.1. Autonomy of LG EF 3.2. Interference with LG Constitutional roles EF 3.3. Decentralization of Functions to lower tiers by LG EF 3.4. Areas handled by sub-LG units

EF4. Resource Mobilization EF 4.1. Sources of LG Income EF 4.2. Collection and management of LG Internally Generated Resources (IGR) EF 4.3. Predictability of LG Statutory Allocation

EF5. LG Capacity EF 5.1. Existing capacity (Human and material resources and organizational structure) EF 5.2. Staff development EF 5.3. Critical capacity building Needs

Chapter: EQUITY

23

EQ1. Pro-Poor Policy EQ 1.1. Availability and adoption of pro-poor policies in specific sectors, EQ 1.2. Equity in distribution of basic services

EQ2. Citizens’ Charter EQ 2.1. Availability, adoption and awareness of Citizens’ Charter EQ 3.1. Incentive for informal business EQ 3.2. Regulatory control on informal business EQ 3.3. Restriction on street trading EQ 3.4. Confrontations between traders and authorities

EQ4. Gender Equity EQ 4.1. Adoption of Affirmative Action EQ 4.2. Women participation in Governance EQ 4.3. Proportion of elected women councilors in the last election EQ 4.4. Women participation in voting in the last election

EQ5. Access to Education EQ 5.1. Primary school net enrolment EQ 5.2. Primary school completion rate EQ 5.3. Measures adopted to raise enrolment and completion rates among girl

students EQ6. Human Right/Rule of Law

EQ 6.1. Harmful Traditional Practices EQ 6.2. Illegal trials of crimes

Chapter: PARTICIPATION PA1. Civic Engagement and Consensus Building

PA 1.1. Roles of non-indigenes in governance PA 1.2. Referendum on issues of public interest PA 1.3. Participation in Election PA 1.4. Involvement of women, youth and children in decision-making PA 1.5. Presence of NGOs/CBOs in the LGA PA 1.6. Involvement of Traditional Rulers in decision-making PA 1.7. Practice of participatory budget and public expenditure tracking

PA2. Partnership Building PA 2.1. Policy on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) PA 2.2. Partnerships with CBOs, NGOs, FBOs

Chapter: SECURITY SE1. Capacity for effective Policing

SE 1.1. Security challenges facing the LGA SE 1.2. Capacity for effectively policing SE 1.3. Police-Public Relation Committee

SE2. Rates of crime SE 2.1. Reported crimes SE 2.2. Establishment of gender desk for crimes

SE3. Environmental security measures SE 3.1. Guidelines/standards for safety in public spaces and buildings SE 3.2. Adoption of the National Building Code SE 3.3. Record of Collapsed Buildings over the past three years

24

SE 3.4. Environmental Pollution measures SE 3.5. Waste management SE 3.6. Adoption of an Emergency Preparedness Plan

SE4. Conflict resolution measures SE 4.1. Methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution (with examples)

SE5. Tenure Security SE 5.1. Access to land by Vulnerable Groups SE 5.2. Incidents of forced evictions SE 5.3. Adoption of Social Housing Policy

Chapter: ACCOUNTABILITY AC1 Transparency and free flow of information AC1.1 Transparency and free flow of information AC.2 Mechanisms for performance measurement

AC 2.1. Use of Yearly Performance Standards AC 2.2. Sanction for negligence

AC.3 Elimination of corruption AC 3.1. Adoption of Due process AC 3.1. Adoption of Due process

AC. 4 Independent Audits AC 4.1. Conduct of Annual Audit AC 4.2. Dissemination of Audit report AC 4.3. Press Releases on Audit report AC 4.4. Action on Audit Report

AC5. Code of Conduct AC 5.1. Adoption of Code of Conduct AC 5.2. Publication and awareness of Code of Conduct AC 5.3. Declaration of Assets of LG Officials and Family members AC 5.4. Verification of Declared assets of officials at retirement AC 5.5. Discipline of Corrupt Officials

AC6. Citizens’ demand for accountability AC 6.1 Freedom of Expression by the Citizens

FOCUSSED GROUP DISCUSSIONS Information collected on relevant aspects of the elements below will be discussed in the related sections above.

Effectiveness (See EF1.1-EF1.4; EF2.1-EF2.3; EF3.2 AND EF4.3) Equity (See EQ1.1, EQ2.1, EQ3.1, EQ3.3-3.4; EQ4.1-4.2 AND EQ6.1) Participation (See PA 1.1-1.3; PA 1.6) Security (See SE1.1; SE 2.1. SE 4.1, SE51.-5.3) Accountability (See AC2.2; AC4.1-4.2; AC4.4 and AC6.1)

25

PART THREE Chapter: CHALLENGES AND OOPRTUNITIES OF GOOD URBAN GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA CHAPTER: GUG INDEX

EFFECTIVENESS 1. Vision statement for LGA/municipal 2. Service delivery 3. Resource Mobilisation and Management

EQUITY 4. Pro-poor Policies 5. Gender Equity 6. Suggest also include EQ 3 informal business 7. Access to education

PARTICIPATION 8. Civic engagement and Consensus orientation 9. Partnership building

SECURITY 10. Rate of Crime 11. Environmental Security Measures 12. Tenure Security

ACCOUNTABILITY 13. Free Flow of Information 14. Due Process in award of contracts 15. Independent audit 16. Citizen demand for accountability

Chapter: CHALLENGES OF GOOD URBAN GOVERNANCE Chapter: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY