Nigeria Subnational Public Financial Management Report

8/10/2019 Nigeria Subnational Public Financial Management Report

1/33

SUB-NATIONAL REPORT

SUB-NATIONAL

PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR 2011

Nigeria Governors' Forum Secretariat

David Nabena | Economist | +234 (0) 8188719234 | [email protected]

1 Deng Xiaoping Street Asokoro Extension Abuja, Nigeria

www.nggovernorsforum.org


2/33

2

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 9

1.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................................................. 9

1.2 Methodology........................................................................................................................................................... 9

SECTION 2: PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 10

2.1 Budget ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Total Revenue: Internally Generated Revenue & FAAC Allocations ............................................. 12

2.3 Public Debt ............................................................................................................................................................ 15

2.4 Solvency Ratio ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.5 Liquidity Ratio ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.6 Fiscal Service Sustainability........................................................................................................................... 22

SECTION 3: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 26

3.1 Budget Performance ......................................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Total Revenue Performance .......................................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Public Debt Performance ................................................................................................................................ 27

3.4 Debt Ratios and Sustainability Performance .......................................................................................... 28

SECTION 4: RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 29

SECTION 5: APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1: 2011 Budget, Total Revenue and Public Debt for States ........................................................ 31

Appendix 2: Debt Sustainability Ratios and Fiscal Service Sustainability for States (2011) ............ 32

Appendix 3: State Population and Rate of Unemployment (2011) .............................................................. 33


3/33

3

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Budgets of States (2011) ....................................................................................................... 10

Figure 1.2: Budget and Total Revenue Spread for States (2011).......................................................... 12

Figure 1.3: Total Revenue Distributions for States (2011).................................................................... 13

Figure 1.4: Total Revenue for States (2011) ........................................................................................... 14

Figure 1.5: Public Debts for States (2011) .............................................................................................. 17

Figure 1.6: Solvency Ratios for States I (2011)....................................................................................... 19

Figure 1.7: Solvency Ratios for States II (2011) ..................................................................................... 20

Figure 1.8: Liquidity Ratios for States (2011)......................................................................................... 22

Figure 1.9: Fiscal Service Sustainability for States (2011) .................................................................... 23

Figure 1.10: Population, Unemployment and IGR in Nigeria (2011).................................................... 25

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Distribution of Domestic Debts of the 36 States as at December 31, 2011......................... 16

Table 1.2: Solvency Spread for States (2011) ......................................................................................... 20


4/33

4

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AfDB Africa Development Bank

CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

DMO Debt Management Office

DRI Debt Relief International

FAAC Federal Accounts Allocation Committee

FIB Freedom of Information Bill

FMF Federal Ministry of Finance

FRL Fiscal Responsibility Law

FSS Fiscal Service Sustainability

IGR Internally Generated Revenue

IT Information Technology

JTB Joint Tax Board

MSMEs Micro, Small and Medium Scale Enterprises

NBS National Bureau of Statistics

NPC National Population Commission

PD Public Debt

PDML Public Debt Management Law

PFM Public Financial Management

PPL Public Procurement Law

TR Total Revenue

USD United States Dollars


5/33

5

Foreword

The Nigeria sub-National Public Financial Management (PFM) performance report is a baseline

analysis focusing on the 2011 PFM data for States. The PFM Report which sets the tone for a

number of quarterly reports on sub-National governance issues in Nigeria, is one of severalpublications of the Nigeria Governors Forum Secretariat based on empirical data and policy-driven

indicators.

Over the years, a strong political will and commitment has led a number of States to implement

meaningful PFM reforms and these have stirred sustainable changes as well as glaring gaps in the

fiscal environment of these States. This report represents our strategy for advancing all aspects of

the Forums readiness to collectively confront the challenges of governance and ultimately build a

transparent, accountable and a truly democratic Nigeria. It serves as an empirical approach to

exercise oversight while stirring up robust participation amongst citizens.

From a methodological standpoint, our approach to entrenching good governance is largely

pragmatic: we believe the most appropriate methods should be identified to fit the operational

context. Whats most novel about this report is the approach to applying recommended governance

tools as it builds on a strategic set of PFM database developed by the Economic Unit of the

Secretariat.

The sub-National PFM performance report contains valuable information not only for our

principals the 36 State Governors, but also policy makers and planners in government and private

sectors, as well as researchers. It is a functional tool and planning instrument to be used at different

levels for the designing, implementation and monitoring of PFM governance in Nigeria.

A.B Okauru Esq.

Director General

Nigeria Governors Forum


6/33

6

Executive Summary

The sub-National Public Financial Management (PFM) performance report for 2011 reveals a 19.34

per cent compound annual growth rate for total budget of States from N1, 684.72 billion in 2005 to

N4, 866.16 billion in 2011.

Lagos, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa led States in budget allocations as they recorded

N445.18 billion, N415.9 billion, N361.9 billion and N214.59 billion respectively. These five States

represented 38.17 per cent of total planned public revenue and expenditure for the 36 States in

2011. Their counterparts including Yobe, Anambra, Kwara, Zamfara and Taraba presented the least

budgets comprising N69.22 billion, N66.9 billion, N60.61 billion, N59 billion and N58.7 billion

respectively for the fiscal year.

Findings showed that most States are steadily improving their performances in revenue generation

as total revenues stood at N3.05 trillion in 2011, comprising net FAAC allocations of N2, 563.72

billion (84 per cent) and IGR of N483.47 billion (16 per cent). The sub-national governments

earned N254 billion monthly or N8.4 billion daily in revenues with Lagos, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta

and Bayelsa accruing the largest share (41 per cent) of the total revenues for States.

Public debt however was recorded at N1.48 trillion, comprising domestic debts reaching N1.15

trillion (77 per cent) and external debts of N334 billion (23 per cent). Percentage of flow to non-

flow debts1 was 55.21:44.79 per cent, showing that a larger percent of domestic debts were

incurred from commercial bank loans and State bonds; while contractors arrears, pension and

gratuity arrears, government-to-government debts, salary arrears and other staff claims and other

liabilities made up 44.79 per cent of their total domestic debt for the 2011 fiscal year.

Lagos, Bayelsa and Cross River led States with the highest public debts relative to the total debt for

all States, with ratios as high as 16 per cent, 11 per cent and 7 per cent respectively; while Borno,

Jigawa and Yobe States recorded the least, each constituting less than 1 per cent of total debt for

States. Further, Borno, Jigawa, Oyo, Yobe, Osun, Katsina, Kano, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Nasarawa States

all had unhealthy dependence on external sources of public finance, with external debt components

all above 50 per cent of their total debts.

1Non flow debts are unstructured payments with no contractual terms. They include contractors

arrears, arrears on pensions, gratuities, salaries and other staff claims, judgment debts and other

liabilities.


7/33

7

Solvency ratio findings for public debt and total revenues showed that no State was in breach of the

World Bank CPIA2250 per cent threshold, although Cross River had reached a risk level of 199.21

per cent. Contrarily, solvency ratios comparing domestic debt to internally generated revenue

showed that most states had reached high risk levels compared to the DRI threshold3of 92 per cent

to 167 per cent. Only eight States including Oyo, Katsina, Kano, Anambra, Yobe, Jigawa, Borno and

Lagos scored ratios below 92 per cent in 2011, as Cross River, Bayelsa, Bauchi, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Ondo

and Kogi led States with very high solvency ratios indicating over-reliance on federal allocations.

A further liquidity ratio analysis on average FAAC allocations and debt service deductions showed

that although no State reached the applicable 40 per cent threshold as applied by Nigerias debt

management agency, Edo, Abia, Gombe and Ekiti States where at high risk levels that required

effective precautionary measures.

Additionally, both Cross River and Ebonyi States witnessed deficit fiscal service sustainability in

2011, with N53.6 billion and N8.9 billion respectively, showing that public debt was higher than

total revenues for the period. Akwa Ibom, Delta and Rivers States recorded the highest surpluses

amongst other States for the review period.

Findings showed that budget realism remained a key challenge for most sub-National governments

in Nigeria as a result of poor budget formulation and implementation mechanisms. Addressing

these issues require establishing clear policy objectives, ensuring the availability of resources and

setting realistic timelines (given revenue, expenditure and borrowing constraints).

Commendably, a number of States now develop their annual budgets within a multiyear

perspective, through the preparation of medium-term revenue and expenditure frameworks; not

least to gain a full appreciation of the future spending implications of present policy decisions.

Recommended policy moves proposed by the sub-National Public Financial Management (PFM)

performance report for 2011 include:

Comprehensively establishing and implementing relevant legal and institutional

frameworks for public financial management;

Strengthening sub-National capacity to improve institutional structures;

2The Country and Policy Institutional Assessment is a diagnostic tool that captures the quality of a countryspolicies and institutional arrangements - in this case, public sector management and institutions.3 The Debt Relief International (DRI) solvency threshold, according to Nigerias debt manag ement agency,underscores the need for sub-national governments to grow their IGRs to reduce high dependence on their

statutory allocations in the running of their governments. This is to enable States free-up resources for

development projects


8/33

8

Define and agree to thresholds for assessing PFM sustainability indicators; and

In view of data challenges, States should commit to compile and publish accurate and timely

data on all sub-National PFM data.


9/33

9

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

This report provides an indicator-led framework to analyse key aspects of public finance for sub-

National governments in Nigeria. The assessment was conducted for the 36 States of Nigeria for the

2011 fiscal year and it discusses issues relating to maximizing public sector financial performanceand improving State economies through budgets, total revenue (internally generated revenue and

FAAC allocations), public debt (domestic and external), debt sustainability (solvency and liquidity

ratios) and fiscal service sustainability.

Public financial management entails the development of laws, organizations and systems to enable

sustainable, efficient, effective and transparent management of public finance. Its performance

would be judged on the basis of ratios relating debt stock and service to fiscal payment capacity.

The final section provides practical recommendations aimed at promoting fiscal discipline, and

enhancing efficiency in the use of public expenditures, while improving transparency and

accountability in the use of public resources.

1.1

Objective

The report seeks to develop a framework for carrying out in-depth analysis of Nigerias public

financial management system through an indicator-led structure. It sets the trend for monitoring

sub-national performances across States, and establishing a practical approach to fiscal peer review

in Nigeria.

1.2 Methodology

The methodology assesses budget, revenue, and debt performances across the 36 States of Nigeria

based on established assessment tools of the World Banks Country and Policy Institutional

Assessment (CPIA) and Debt Relief Internationals (DRI) solvency threshold; examining solvency

ratios, liquidity ratios and fiscal service sustainability for sub-national governments. The scope of

data focuses on 2011 PFM data sourced from States approved 2012 budgets, Nigerias Debt

Management Office (DMO) and the Joint Tax Board. Social indices for population across States and

unemployment rates as at 2011 are subsequently employed based on reports from Nigerias

National Population Commission (NPC) and Bureau of Statistics to define the level of correlation

linking population, unemployment and IGR across States.


10/33

10

SECTION 2: PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS

2.1 Budget

Total budget for the 36 States summed up to N4, 866 billion in 2011, with Lagos, Akwa Ibom,

Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa States approving the highest estimates for their recurrent and capital

expenditures at N445.18 billion, N419.79 billion, N415.9 billion, N361.9 billion and N214.59 billion

respectively. The total budget for these top 5 States made up 38 per cent of the total budget of all 36

States. States with the lowest budget for the year under review include Yobe, Anambra, Kwara,

Zamfara and Taraba with budgets as low as N69.22 billion, N66.9 billion, N60.61 billion, N59 billion

and N58.7 billion (Figure 1.1)(see Appendix 1).

Figure 1.1: Budgets of States (2011)

Source: 2012 Budget of States


11/33

11

Looking at how far the total revenue (IGR & FAAC allocations excluding grants and borrowing) of

States could finance their 2011 annual budget4, on average, the 36 States could finance 63.34

percent of their total budget from total revenues. The States with the highest revenue capacities in

relation to annual budgets include Anambra, Kwara, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa States; these

States could respectively finance 94.03 per cent, 93.44 per cent, 86.31 per cent, 86.31 per cent and

77.89 per cent of their budgets primarily from total revenues (FAAC and IGR). On the other hand,

States that could only finance less than 50 per cent of their 2011 annual budgets from total

revenues include Nasarawa (49.41 per cent), Ekiti (45.85 per cent), Cross River (45.39 per cent),

Niger (42.11 per cent) and Edo (42.02 per cent) (Figure 1.2). In this regard, we expect that these

States would relatively have high public debts sought to augment these shortages.

You may wish to also provide (in addition) a table with columns for total expenditure budget, FAAC,

IGR, Total Revenue, and percentage surplus/deficit for each state.

4Budget preparation remains one of the fundamental aspects of a States PFM performance; and

one of its major challenges in Nigeria is the absence of a standard provision for analysis and

presentation, hence, the discrepancy in data presentation and analysis amongst experts. More so,

States must not underestimate the importance of budget formulation and their capacities to sustain

them, as it remains the States key fiscal policy instrument for controlling aggregate demand and

the level of economic activity; the distribution of income; and the pattern of resource allocation

within the government sector and relative to the private sector. The budget document also sets the

tone for their consumption (public and private), gross investment, spending and trade pattern.


12/33

12

Figure 1.2: Budget and Total Revenue Spread for States (2011)

Source: 2012 Budget of States

2.2 Total Revenue: Internally Generated Revenue & FAAC Allocations

Total revenue in this report consists of net FAAC allocations and internally generated revenues.

These figures are sourced from Nigerias Debt Management Office, the Joint Tax Board5(JTB) and

the 2012 budgets of States.

5IGR for Borno, Delta, Nasarawa, Ogun, Ondo and Osun were sourced from JTB.


13/33


14/33

14

Figure 1.4: Total Revenue for States (2011)

Source: 2012 Budgets of States, JTB & FMF

Government revenues are received from taxation, fees, fines, inter-governmental transfers,

securities sales, mineral rights and resource rights, as well as any sales that are made. In the

absence of a stable and efficient revenue generating system, the government has to borrow from

the markets. It is important to note that there exists a relative relationship between government

revenue, taxation and public debt these are important components that make up the States

budgetary and fiscal system.

Systems of taxation can contribute to societies in two main areas: revenue generation andredistribution. Different sub-national governments exhibit differing relative urgency of needs in

terms of these factors, and so it is of paramount importance to distinguish the primary goal when

considering a tax policy. Most of these States face an overwhelming difficulty in regard to both the

level and the stability of revenues; as such, their requirements should be for viable and long-term

new sources of funds.


15/33

15

Re-pricing economic alternatives is another purpose of taxation policy. Specifically, taxation can be

governments main tool by which to influence the behaviour of their individual and corporate

citizens. Addressing externalities by e.g. increasing the costs of polluting behaviour, or the

incentives to save, can deliver substantial benefits7. These measures guide domestic revenue

mobilization, a key component of sustainable development.

2.3 Public Debt

Public debt constitutes debt owed by State governments to domestic and external lenders. As at

December 31, 2011, total public debt for the 36 States of Nigeria stood as N1.48 trillion comprising

domestic debts of N1.15 trillion (77.5 per cent) and external debts of N334 billion (22.5 per cent).

Contractors arrears, commercial bank loans and State bonds recorded the highest category for

domestic debts with 33.47 per cent, 30.23 per cent and 24.97 per cent respectively while N6, 015

million was still owed in salary arrears and other staff claims by the end of December 2011 (Table

1.1).

Flow debts from commercial bank loans and state bonds made up 55.21 per cent (N633.61 billion)

of total domestic debt stock flows; while non-flow debts from contractors arrears, arrears on

pensions, gratuities, salaries and other staff claims, judgment debts and other liabilities amounted

to 44.79 per cent (N514.12 billion). Flow debts are payments defined by agreements between the

creditor (or investor) and the State, non flow debts are unstructured payments with no contractual

terms.

Lagos, Bayelsa and Cross River led the total debt mix respectively with 16 per cent, 11 per cent and

7 per cent of the total debt for States. Borno, Jigawa and Yobe States however had the least public

debts at N3, 714.6 million, N5, 939.33 million and N6, 968.79 million, each constituting less than 1

per cent of total debt mix for States (Appendix 1). Other States that contributed less than 1 per cent

of total public debt for all sub-National governments include Anambra, Gombe, Katsina, Nasarawa

and Sokoto

7Cobham, A. (2005). Taxation policy and development. OCGG Economy Analysis, (2)


16/33

16

Table 1.1: Distribution of Domestic Debts of the 36 States as at December 31, 2011

D EBT C A TEG OR Y A M OUNT (N M IL L ION) OF TOTA L

CONTRACTORS' ARREARS 384,099.76 33.47

COMMERCIAL BANK LOANS 346,973.14 30.23

STATE BONDS 286,639.54 24.97

PENSION AND GRATUITY ARREARS 61,067.04 5.32

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT DEBT 28,397.11 2.47

SALARY ARREARS AND OTHER STAFF CLAIMS 6,015.49 0.52

OTHER LIABILITIES 34,538.66 3.01

TOTA L D OM ES TIC D EBT 1,147,731.76 100

Source: DMO (2012)

In terms of domestic vs. external debt ratios, Katsina (85 per cent), Jigawa (73 per cent), Oyo and

Yobe (70 per cent) had very high external debt ratios all above 70 per cent of their total public debt.

Osun, Kano, Sokoto, Borno and Nasarawa which all had external debt components ranging from 50

to 69 per cent, relied heavily on external sources of loans as well. Domestic vs. external debt ratios

stood at 77%:23%, showing that most States still preferred domestic sources of public financing.

The analysis also showed that northern states had the highest dependence on external debts

(including Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Sokoto and Yobe) while Southern States including Rivers, Delta

and Bayelsa had the least levels of foreign loan contributions 5.94 per cent, 2.59 per cent and 2.57

per cent respectively.

The ability to service a high debt seems more likely if the debt is held by domestic residents. When

this is the case, debt payments are just a transfer from those in the country who earn income and

pay taxes to those who earn an income from holding the governments bonds. Thus, domestically

held debt represents a redistribution of income of sorts and not necessarily a significant reduction

in the resources available for the economy as a whole to spend on consumption or investment.

However, excessive government borrowing from the domestic debt market may have a crowding-

out effect on the private sector, and may limit their ability to borrow for investment which may hurt

the economy. Nevertheless, raising taxes to redistribute income can still be a challenge for

governments, and there are limits to how much and how effectively governments can tax, which

might make high debt levels unsustainable. And of course, if a large portion of the public debt is

foreign owned, there is the problem of capital flight.


17/33

17

Figure 1.5: Public Debts for States (2011)

Source: DMO (2012)

However, the rise of domestic debts calls for market-based issuance practices and trading

mechanisms for government securities that support macroeconomic stability. Sub-national

governments are encouraged to seek non-inflationary means of public finance given that

commercial bank loans recorded more than 30 per cent of domestic debts in 2011. The undue

delay in payment for completed government projects (33.5 per cent of domestic debts in

contractors arrears) is one popular rationale for over-invoicing of public sector contracts. It has

encouraged dominance of rent-seekers in government contracts, stripping it of value delivery,

while discouraging genuine and competent private companies from accessing government jobs.

Hence abandoned projects are still very much visible on the landscape. This is just one more rising

trend on our shores that is worrisome.


18/33

18

2.4 Solvency Ratio

The solvency ratio of States determines their ability to service debts and achieve long-term growth

and sustainability. Here, it is measured in two streams (i.) the ratio of States public debt to total

revenue; and (ii.) the ratio of domestic debt to IGR. Although the terms bankrupt and insolvent areoften used in reference to governments or government obligations, a government cannot be

insolvent in the normal sense of the word. Debts taken by governments are usually not secured by

their assets, but by their ability to service these debts. If, for any reason, a government cannot meet

its interest obligation, it is technically not insolvent but is "in default".

(i.) Ratio of States public debt to total revenue:

Solvency ratio for the 36 States in 2011 was 49 per cent, with the highest ratio of 199.21 per cent

for Cross River and the least 6.09 per cent for Borno State. No State was in breach of the World

Bank CPIA 250 per cent threshold for solvency; however, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, and Cross River had

solvency ratios as high as 99.99 per cent, 123.56 per cent and 199.21 per cent respectively. Cross

Rivers State which had the highest solvency ratio fell only 20 per cent below the threshold. States

with the least solvency ratio were Jigawa and Borno States at 10.41 per cent and 6.09 per cent

respectively.


19/33

19

Figure 1.6: Solvency Ratios for States I (2011)

(ii.) Ratio of domestic debt to IGR:For this, the Debt Relief International (DRI) solvency threshold

of 92 per cent to 167 per cent was applied. Solvency ratio for the 36 states in terms of domestic

debt and internally generated revenue was 237.39 per cent, at a total domestic debt of N1, 147.73

billion and total IGR of N483.47 billion. Only 8 States scored below the 92 per cent threshold in

2011, they include Oyo (15.62 per cent), Katsina (16.20 per cent), Kano (33.82 per cent), Anambra

(52.20 per cent), Yobe (61.55 per cent), Jigawa (70.32 per cent), Borno (74.93 per cent) and Lagos

(76.86 per cent). Osun, Abia and Sokoto had indebtedness levels above 92 per cent, but just below

167 per cent.

Other States showed very high solvency ratios, with Cross River leading the riskiness with an

alarming 6, 024 per cent. Bayelsa, Bauchi, Ebonyi, Ekiti and Ondo also followed with solvency ratios

reaching high risk levels up to 2, 955 per cent, 1, 429 per cent, 1, 405 per cent, 1, 264 per cent and 1,

214 per cent respectively.


20/33

20

Table 1.2: Solvency Spread for States (2011)

STATE RISK LEVEL SOLVENCY RATIO

CROSS RIVER Very High Alert >3000

BAYELSA, BAUCHI, EBONYI, EKITI, ONDO, KOGIHigh Alert 1000>XXXX


21/33

21

projects. It is also noteworthy that Sub-national governments are solvent if they do not pursue

crowding-out policies that force the private sector into bankruptcy.

2.5 Liquidity Ratio

The liquidity ratio measures the ability of the State to service its debt as at when due. It is based on

the total 12-Month Average FAAC allocation and 12-Month Average Debt Service Deduction from

FAAC8. The relevant threshold of 40 per cent was applied to indicate States performances for the

2011 fiscal year. Total 12-Month Average FAAC allocation for the 36 States stood at USD1, 286.06

million while 12-Month Average Debt Service Deduction from FAAC was USD157.83 million, giving

a liquidity ratio of 12.27 per cent for the 36 States.

Although no State reached the 40 per cent threshold, some however reached high-risk levels,

including Edo (35.76 per cent), Abia (28.80 per cent), Gombe (27.37 per cent) and Ekiti (25.58 per

cent). Ogun, Osun, Kwara and Taraba had the lowest liquidity ratios at 1.87 per cent, 1.45 per cent,

0.57 per cent and 0.50 per cent respectively.

8 DMO (2012) Report on the Programme for the Establishment of Debt Management Departments and

Domestic Debt Data Reconstruction in the 36 States of the Federation and the FCT (2008 2012)


22/33

22

Figure 1.8: Liquidity Ratios for States (2011)

The liquidity assessment for States showed quite a sustainable performance in 2011 however,

States must maintain caution. For instance, Edo and Abia States exhibited high risk of servicing

their debts in the occasion of any sharp decline in oil prices, federal government revenues and more

specifically, federal allocation. International standard thresholds are important for States to

anticipate, measure and monitor sustainability as it allows them make informed choices about the

trade-offs between maintaining certain liquidity levels and the opportunity costs thereof.

2.6 Fiscal Service Sustainability

Fiscal service sustainability is the difference between the total revenue and public debt. It shows by

how much the government can finance its public debt using its federal allocation and internally

generated revenue. Service sustainability for the 36 States for the 2011 fiscal year was N1, 565.93

billion. Commendably, most states had the financial capacity to cover both their domestic and

public debts for the year, with the exception of Cross River and Ebonyi who had deficits of N53,

586.46 million and N8, 904.81 million respectively. Bayelsa however, was at a risky level with a

surplus of only N19.23 million for the 2011 fiscal year, after public debt deductions.


23/33

23

Figure 1.9: Fiscal Service Sustainability for States (2011)

Akwa Ibom, Delta and Rivers States had the highest fiscal service sustainability levels, with

surpluses reaching impressive highs of N199.12 billion, N144.55 billion and N186.14 billion.

Although a short-term fiscal indicator, the service sustainability measures the ability of State

governments to sustain current borrowings from domestic and external sources without

threatening government solvency or defaulting on some of its liabilities or promised expenditures.

This indicator helps to bring public finances back on a sustainable track. Whichever indicators are

used, the vital step is to analyse their trends and the underlying characteristics of the government.

If debt starts at high levels and is forecast to grow constantly over the long-term, without anyconcomitant increase in revenues, debt levels are unsustainable, and the effect of this indicator

overtime could portend structural results. For example, some sub-national governments have

executed intensive infrastructure programmes, financed by loans which generated large debt

service burdens. These deprived the infrastructure of maintenance spending, leaving its quality


24/33

24

ultimately similar to the situation before the programme. If similar situations occur more

frequently, overall debt sustainability as well as fiscal equilibrium may be jeopadised9.

POPULATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, INTERNALLY GENERATED REVENUE. Does a relationship

exist?

This final section analyses generally, the relationship between population, unemployment and IGR.

It helps to raise questions that emanate from how well States take advantage of their population;

how far sub-national economic policies go in expanding their formal and informal sectors with the

aim of improving aggregate demand, consumption, trade and hence, taxation. Using data for the 36

States, the graph below shows the following:

i.

A positive relationship between IGR and Population; and

ii. A negative relationship between IGR and Unemployment.

States with high population have higher opportunities for increasing IGR through substantive

population integration and economic participation. If more jobs are provided, the economy

expands, unemployment falls and the tax base of the State grows. The most explicit form of this

relationship is explicated in Lagos State as its urbanisation growth rate is a rapid 16 per cent. The

States share of Nigerias urban population is also a hefty 27.4 percent according to UN-Habitat.

9Commonwealth Secretariat (2009) Fiscal Sustainability of Debt, paper prepared by Development Finance

International (DFI), CEMLA, and Commonwealth Secretariat, April 2009.


25/33

25

Figure 1.10: Population, Unemployment and IGR in Nigeria (2011)

Nigeria has experienced rapid urbanization in the last thirty years. The countrys urbanites now

account for 48.2 per cent of the population, compared to 23.4 per cent in 1975. The challenge for

most States is to design fiscal policies to absorb this large rural exodus and the resultant housing

shortages, traffic congestion, and environmental degradation. This facilitation stimulates private

sector participation (formal and informal) in aggregate economic activities.

Further, States that still show neutral or negative relationship between IGR and Population (poor

revenues to population ratio) have comparative advantages that they must take advantage of as

urbanization transports labour to other States (hence expanding the economies of other States),

opportunities for expanding their tax base falls. As States continue to fulfill required fiscal

obligations, they must take advantage of their human and natural resources if they have low

population levels, they must build sustainable frameworks to attract skilled, semi-skilled and

unskilled labour. If they are highly populated however, they must maximize their comparative

advantage in expanding their economies.

In any case, the infusion of this private sector perspective ensures that investment opportunities

are consistently created for sustainable growth and development.


26/33

26

SECTION 3: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following section reviews findings of the PFM Performance sub-National Report for the six (6)

indicators for public financial performance, i.e. Budget, Total Revenues, Public Debt, Solvency Ratio,

Liquidity Ratio, and Fiscal Service Sustainability. The section also identifies key PFM challenges inNigeriassub-National governments.

3.1 Budget Performance

Findings show that total budget for the 36 States of Nigeria from 2005 to 2011 had a compound

annual growth rate of 19.34 per cent; from N1, 684.72 billion in 2005 to N4, 866.16 billion in 2011.

This achievement has been due to a number of regulatory and policy initiatives that have been

implemented in a number of States. Compliance with PFM regulations have also continued to

improve with most States adopting PFM Laws, albeit slowly.

Lagos, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa led the States in budget allocations with N445.18

billion, N415.9 billion, N361.9 billion and N214.59 billion respectively. These five (5) States made

up 38.17 per cent of total budget provisions for the 36 States in 2011. Yobe, Anambra, Kwara,

Zamfara and Taraba represented States with the least budgets comprising N69.22 billion, N66.9

billion, N60.61 billion, N59 billion and N58.7 billion respectively.

Budget realism still remains a major challenge for these States from minimal citizens

participation to poor legislative scrutiny, challenges in understanding technicalities in budgets and

financial and time constraints. Although States have begun to engage the civil society in stakeholder

workshops and town hall meetings as well as disseminate budget information using websites and

other publications, the ability of non-state actors to influence economic, fiscal and expenditure

policies remains inadequate.

Furthermore, the absence of a standard provision for budget formulation and presentation has

hampered any form of external scrutiny. The legislatures have remained the primary evaluators

even as dedicated times remain too short to examine the recommended budget effectively to make

meaningful changes. Some challenges mitigating budget performances across States include the

following:

i.

Complexity of budget documents in the review, approval and evaluation processes;

ii.

Absence of a standard provision for budget formulation and presentation;

iii. Lack of capacity to scrutinize budget procedures and processes; and

iv.

Limited citizens participation in budgetary processes.


27/33

27

Recent developments at the Sub-national level however, show some progress as the legislative arm

of States have begun to show greater interest in fiscal issues, with the need to promote fiscal

independence as they continue to align themselves with the executive in reaching PFM targets.

3.2 Total Revenue Performance

Results indicate that most States are steadily improving their performances in revenue generation.

Total revenues for the 36 States was N3.05 trillion in 2011, comprising net FAAC allocations of N2,

563.72 billion and IGR of N483.47 billion (15.87 per cent of total revenues). This showed that in

2011, Nigerias sub-national governments earned about N254 billion monthly or N8.4 billion daily

in revenues. This positive trend has been primarily due to a stronger political will and a more

effective administration reform with emphasis on legislation, automation of work processes, human

resource capacity investment and the entrenchment of IT infrastructure across State revenue

frameworks.

However, while some States including Lagos, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta and Bayelsa have continued

to maintain the largest share of the total revenue for States (around 41 per cent in 2011), others

including Zamfara, Gombe, Ekiti, Nasarawa and Ebonyi have continued to lag behind. Poor public

perception has remained a major challenge to the process as well as human capacity limitations,

and the absence of a comprehensive adoption of PFM laws to ensure accountability and

transparency measures.

States are encouraged to adopt modern tax systems that are efficient, to minimize market

distortions while ensuring a service-oriented relationship with tax payers (a more effective tool for

reaching MSMEs). Establishing a lean but effective internal audit system also presents a desirable

avenue for PFM reforms10(AfDB, 2012). This goes beyond compliance and performance auditing to

the promotion of accountability and transparency in government,

3.3 Public Debt Performance

The total public debt for the 36 States in 2011 was recorded as N1.48 trillion, comprising domestic

debts reaching N1.15 trillion (77 per cent) and external debts of N334 billion (23 per cent).

Findings showed that the percentage of flow to non-flow debts was 55.21:44.79 per cent for the

period under review, showing that a larger percent of domestic debts were incurred from

commercial bank loans and State bonds; while contractors arrears, pension and gratuity arrears,

10 AfDB (2012) Africa Governance Outlook. Public Financial Governance Reforms: The Recent Progress in

Africa


28/33

28

government-to-government debts, salary arrears and other staff claims and other liabilities made

up 44.79 per cent of total domestic debt for States.

Lagos, Bayelsa and Cross River led States with the highest public debts relative to the total debt for

all States, with percentage ratios as high as 16 per cent, 11 per cent and 7 per cent respectively. Onthe other hand, Borno, Jigawa and Yobe States maintained the least total public debts, each

constituting less than 1 per cent of total debt for States. Findings also showed that Borno, Jigawa,

Oyo, Yobe, Osun, Katsina, Kano, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Nasarawa States all had unhealthy dependence

on external sources of public finance, with external debt components all above 50 per cent of their

total debts.

These results pose serious challenges for domestic resource mobilization, income distribution and

capital flight.

3.4 Debt Ratios and Sustainability Performance

Solvency ratio findings for public debt and total revenues showed that no State was in breach of the

World Bank CPIA 250 per cent threshold, although Cross River had reached a risk level of 199.21

per cent. On the other hand, solvency ratios comparing domestic debt to internally generated

revenue showed that most states had reached high risk levels compared to the DRI threshold of 92

per cent to 167 per cent. Only 8 States including Oyo, Katsina, Kano, Anambra, Yobe, Jigawa, Borno

and Lagos scored ratios below 92 per cent in 2011. Cross River, Bayelsa, Bauchi, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Ondo

and Kogi led States with very high solvency ratios for domestic debt and IGR, which indicated an

over-reliance on federal allocations.

A further liquidity ratio analysis on average FAAC allocations and debt service deductions showed

that although no State reached the applicable 40 per cent threshold, Edo, Abia, Gombe and Ekiti

States11where at high risk levels that required effective precautionary measures.

The final indicator analysis which measured fiscal service sustainability for States showed that in

2011, Cross River and Ebonyi were in deficit of N53.6 billion and N8.9 billion respectively, in terms

of how far their total revenues could finance their public debt for the fiscal year; while Akwa Ibom,

Delta and Rivers States had the highest surpluses amongst other States for the given year.

The greater challenge is that overall debt imbalances and unsustainable government borrowing

ultimately weigh down the fiscal equilibrium of sub-National economies. Intensive infrastructure

11Refer to Appendix 2 for the liquidity ratio index.


29/33


30/33

30

iv.

In view of data challenges, States should commit to compile and publish accurate and timely

data on all sub-national PFM data, to aid the analysis of trends and indicators as part of the

States PFM strategy; establishing a PFM database based on strong capacities and

competencies. This database which should be adapted to national circumstances, would

guide budgetary processes as it sets the term for fiscal rules.

v.

States could undertake to work with international standards (after agreeing thresholds for

assessing sustainability indicators) to define methods for establishing sub-limits for sub-

national governments, so as to ensure that the sum of national and sub-national

government debt are within national total debt limits.


31/33

31

SECTION 5: APPENDICES

Appendix 1: 2011 Budget, Total Revenue and Public Debt for States

Source: 2012 Budget of States, JTB, FMF & DMO

S T A T E S

BUDGET

(N BILLION)

T O T A L R E V E N U E

(N M IL L IO N) IG R FA A C

PUBLIC DEBT

(N MILLION)

DO MES TIC

DEBT

E X T E R N A L

DEBT

ABIA 105.106 64,275.16 25.06% 74.94% 29,414.86 82.28% 17.72%

ADAMAWA 70.6 52,349.06 7.12% 92.88% 30,515.33 85.05% 14.95%

AKWA IBOM 419.785 250,194.24 3.66% 96.34% 51,070.86 80.78% 19.22%

ANAMBRA 66.9 62,908.98 19.50% 80.50% 10,234.08 62.57% 37.43%

BAUCHI 111.957 56,150.24 2.29% 97.71% 28,284.90 64.86% 35.14%

BAYELSA 214.59 167,142.88 3.30% 96.70% 167,123.65 97.43% 2.57%

BENUE 71.6 54,193.96 8.46% 91.54% 20,796.31 79.97% 20.03%

BORNO 99.8 60,988.38 3.69% 96.31% 3,714.96 45.35% 54.65%

CROSS RIVER 119 54,013.97 2.79% 97.21% 107,600.43 84.34% 15.66%

DELTA 361.9 237,804.07 10.97% 89.03% 93,257.51 97.41% 2.59%

EBONYI 73.5 37,790.21 7.58% 92.42% 46,695.02 86.18% 13.82%

EDO 163.86 68,861.52 15.52% 84.48% 45,706.35 85.42% 14.58%

EKITI 92.5 42,406.72 4.42% 95.58% 29,057.84 81.45% 18.55%

ENUGU 89.6 49,394.79 6.59% 93.41% 17,922.27 60.75% 39.25%

GOMBE 79.4 47,524.04 8.95% 91.05% 11,616.42 61.73% 38.27%

IMO 124.475 65,368.80 17.83% 82.17% 33,297.84 76.34% 23.66%

JIGAWA 77.293 57,028.08 3.97% 96.03% 5,939.33 26.78% 73.22%

KADUNA 136.5 72,708.70 17.69% 82.31% 63,332.05 54.90% 45.10%

KANO 157.69 96,040.88 18.06% 81.94% 15,234.47 38.51% 61.49%

KATSINA 100 71,621.12 17.76% 82.24% 13,677.40 15.06% 84.94%

KEBBI 91.5 52,899.13 6.57% 93.43% 14,861.04 49.06% 50.94%

KOGI 80 52,062.57 5.83% 94.17% 39,497.45 86.39% 13.61%

KWARA 60.61 56,634.96 23.98% 76.02% 32,147.60 78.56% 21.44%

LAGOS 445.18 316,475.04 64.76% 35.24% 234,608.63 67.15% 32.85%

NASAWARA 81.506 40,273.82 5.15% 94.85% 11,143.79 47.88% 52.12%

NIGER 129 54,317.66 3.32% 96.68% 21,385.44 79.38% 20.62%

OGUN 98 56,893.69 13.92% 86.08% 44,963.89 67.04% 32.96%

ONDO 143 77,383.57 5.15% 94.85% 56,208.33 86.05% 13.95%

OSUN 88.143 49,809.53 6.78% 93.22% 15,099.06 36.19% 63.81%

OYO 147 87,689.82 35.10% 64.90% 17,044.37 28.21% 71.79%

PLATEAU 86.562 53,237.99 10.11% 89.89% 24,110.12 86.72% 13.28%

RIVERS 415.9 275,427.09 11.10% 88.90% 89,284.19 94.06% 5.94%

SOKOTO 76.78 55,196.82 6.25% 93.75% 11,184.75 43.83% 56.17%

TARABA 58.7 50,666.69 3.99% 96.01% 21,170.78 84.90% 15.10%

YOBE 69.22 51,551.89 6.58% 93.42% 6,968.79 29.97% 70.03%

ZAMFARA 59 47,910.39 2.91% 97.09% 17,091.40 75.88% 24.12%

TO TA L 4 ,8 66 .1 6 3 ,0 4 7 ,1 9 6 .4 3 1 5 .8 7 8 4 .1 3 1 ,4 8 1 ,2 6 1 .5 1 7 7 .4 8 2 2 .5 2


32/33

32

Appendix 2: Debt Sustainability Ratios and Fiscal Service Sustainability for States (2011)

STATES

SOLVENCY

RA TIO I ( )

SOLV ENCY RATIO

II ( )

LIQUIDITY

RA TIO ( )

FISCAL

SUSTAINABILITY

[N MILLION]

ABIA 45.76 150.27 28.8 34,860.30

ADAMAWA 58.29 696.33 14.18 21,833.73

AKWA IBOM 20.41 450.01 6.31 199,123.38

ANAMBRA 16.27 52.20 6.84 52,674.90

BAUCHI 50.37 1,428.84 12.95 27,865.34

BAYELSA 99.99 2,955.04 19.59 19.23

BENUE 38.37 362.65 15.11 33,397.65

BORNO 6.09 74.93 12.68 57,273.42

CROSS RIVER 199.21 6,023.91 20.5 (53,586.46)

DELTA 39.22 348.23 20.01 144,546.56

EBONYI 123.56 1,404.88 24.42 (8,904.81)

EDO 66.37 365.36 35.76 23,155.17

EKITI 68.52 1,264.04 25.58 13,348.88

ENUGU 36.28 334.59 8.93 31,472.52

GOMBE 24.44 168.49 27.37 35,907.62

IMO 50.94 218.09 24.44 32,070.96

JIGAWA 10.41 70.32 8.53 51,088.75

KADUNA 87.1 270.33 9.41 9,376.65

KANO 15.86 33.82 13.71 80,806.41

KATSINA 19.1 16.20 11.59 57,943.72

KEBBI 28.09 209.94 10.72 38,038.09

KOGI 75.87 1,124.69 8.11 12,565.12

KWARA 56.76 185.98 0.57 24,487.36

LAGOS 74.13 76.86 6.36 81,866.41

NASAWARA 27.67 257.11 16.66 29,130.03

NIGER 39.37 942.22 9.27 32,932.22

OGUN 79.03 380.72 1.87 11,929.80

ONDO 72.64 1,213.90 2.74 21,175.24

OSUN 30.31 161.80 1.45 34,710.47

OYO 19.44 15.62 4.64 70,645.45

PLATEAU 45.29 388.30 3.74 29,127.87

RIVERS 32.42 274.63 7.29 186,142.90

SOKOTO 20.26 142.01 2.39 44,012.07

TARABA 41.78 888.80 0.5 29,495.91

YOBE 13.52 61.55 5.69 44,583.10

ZAMFARA 35.67 930.43 20.38 30,818.99

TOTA L 48.61 237.39 12 .27 1,565,934.92

Source: Authors calculations based on 2012 Budget of States, JTB, FMF & DMO data


33/33

Appendix 3: State Population and Rate of Unemployment (2011)

STATES

POPULATION

(MILLION)

UNEMPLOYMENT

( )

ABIA 3.25 11.2

ADAMAWA 3.67 33.8

AKWA IBOM 4.61 18.4

ANAMBRA 4.80 12

BAUCHI 5.50 41.4

BAYELSA 1.97 23.9

BENUE 4.93 14.2

BORNO 4.93 29.1

CROSS RIVER 3.34 18.2

DELTA 4.81 27.2

EBONYI 2.50 23.1

EDO 3.69 35.2

EKITI 2.79 12.1

ENUGU 3.79 25.2

GOMBE 2.77 38.7

IMO 4.60 26.1

JIGAWA 5.03 35.9

KADUNA 7.09 30.3

KANO 11.06 21.3

KATSINA 6.73 28.1

KEBBI 3.79 25.3

KOGI 3.84 14.4

KWARA 2.74 7.1

LAGOS 10.67 8.3

NASAWARA 2.17 36.5

NIGER 4.67 39.4

OGUN 4.41 22.9

ONDO 4.01 12.5

OSUN 4.00 3

OYO 6.60 8.9

PLATEAU 3.66 25.3

RIVERS 6.14 25.5

SOKOTO 4.29 17.9

TARABA 2.65 12.7

YOBE 2.76 35.6

ZAMFARA 3.84 42.6

TOTA L 162.10 23.43Source: National Population Commission, NBS

Nigeria Subnational Public Financial Management Report

Documents

Transcript of Nigeria Subnational Public Financial Management Report