World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/.../121420-v2-REVISED-Senegal...report-E… · 2010-2015...
Transcript of World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/.../121420-v2-REVISED-Senegal...report-E… · 2010-2015...
Republic of Senegal Social Protection public expenditure review 2010-2015
Analytical report Solène Rougeaux
World Bank 2017
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations i
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
List of Boxes v
Chapter 1 – Context: Population, Vulnerability, and Poverty 1
I – Introduction 1
II – Methodology 1
III – Population and Vulnerability to Shocks 3
IV – Senegal’s Poverty Profile 8
Chapter 2 – The Social Protection Sector in Senegal and Programs Covered by the Review 9
I – Social Assistance Programs 10
II – Programs for Emergencies and Response to Shocks 13
III – Employment Programs 15
IV – Social Insurance Programs 17
Chapter 3 – 2010‒2015 Social Protection Expenditure 21
I – Overview of Social Protection Sector 21
II – Rising Expenditure on Social Assistance Programs 26
III – Funding Sources and Expenditure on Crisis Response Programs 30
IV – Very Low Expenditure on Employment Programs 32
V – Expenditure on Social Insurance Programs 33
Chapter 4 – Analysis of the Coverage of Social Benefits 35
I – A Life Cycle Approach to Social Protection Programs 35
II – Cross-Cutting Programs Have Highly Unequal Coverage 37
III III – Healthcare Coverage Is High among Children under 5 and Pregnant Women While Other Groups Are Neglected 39
IV – With the Exception of Coverage Provided by Cross-Cutting Programs, the Coverage of Programs Targeting School-Age Children Is Low and Decreasing 41
V – Numerous Programs Target People of Working Age, but Many Needs Remain Unmet 42
VI – One Quarter of People over 60 (the Target Group) Receive Pension and Health Benefits 45
Chapter 5 – Program Efficiency 47
I – Social Protection Programs Should Target Poor People as a Matter of Priority 47
ii
II – Matching Benefits to Relevant Objectives 51
III – Lack of Financial Viability of the Retirement System 56
Chapter 6 – Effectiveness of the Social Welfare System 60
I – The RNU: A Tool with High Potential 60
II – A Complex Institutional Mechanism 62
III – Inefficient Financial Management of the Social Welfare System 67
Chapter 7 – Recommendations 73
I – Recommendation 1: Improve Program Targeting 73
II – Recommendation 2: Strengthen the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Social Protection System for Fighting Poverty 74
III – Recommendation 3: Develop the Efficiency of Shock Response Mechanisms to Improve the Resilience of Poor and Vulnerable Populations to Covariant Shocks 76
IV – Recommendation 4: Promote Productive Household Investments in order to Increase the Productivity of the Most Vulnerable Populations 78
V – Recommendation 5: Revise the Entire Pension System to Ensure Its Financial Sustainability and Fairness 79
Bibliography 80
Annex 1 Description of social protection programs included in the analysis 83
Annex 2 : Total spending from government’s budget from 2010 to 2015 per social protection program in millions of CFA 89
Annex 3 : Total spending from external funding (donors) from 2010 to 2015 per social protection program in millions of CFA 93
Annex 4 : Number of beneficiaries per social protection program from 2010 to 2015 97
i
Acronyms and Abbreviations ACMU Universal Health Coverage Agency (Agence de la Couverture Maladie Universelle) ANPEJ National Agency for Youth Employment (Agence Nationale pour la Promotion et l'Emploi
des Jeunes) ANSD National Statistical and Demographic Agency (Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la
Démographie) ARC African Risk Capacity ASPIRE Atlas of Social Protection – Indicators of Resilience and Equity CBO Community-Based Organization CEC Equal Opportunity Card (Carte d'Égalité des Chances) CFAF CFA Franc CMU Universal Health Coverage (Couverture Maladie Universelle) CNAAS National Agricultural Insurance Fund of Senegal (Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Agricole
du Sénégal) CNCAS National Farm Credit Bank of Senegal (Caisse Nationale de Crédit Agricole du Sénégal) CONFEMEN Conference of Ministers of Education of Francophonie States and Governments
(Conférence des Ministres de l'Éducation des États et Gouvernements de la Francophonie)
CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CRES Consortium for Economic and Social Research (Consortium pour la Recherche
Économique et Sociale) CSO Operational Monitoring Unit (Cellule de Suivi Opérationnel) CSS Social Security Fund (Caisse de Sécurité Sociale) DCAS Directorate of School Feeding programmes (Direction des Cantines Scolaires) DGAS General Directorate of Social Action (Direction Générale de l'Action Sociale) DGCPT General Directorate of Public Accounting and the Treasury (Direction Générale de la
Comptabilité Publique et du Trésor) DGPSN General Delegation for Social Protection and National Solidarity (Délégation Générale à
la Protection Sociale et à la Solidarité Nationale) DHS Demographic and Health Survey DP Development Partner DPEE Directorate of Forecasting and Economic Research (Direction de la Prévision et des
Études Économiques) DSPRV Directorate of Salaries, Pensions, and Annuities (Direction de la Solde, des Pensions, et
Rentes Viagères) EDS Demographic Health Survey (Enquète Démographique de la Santé) ESPS Poverty Monitoring Survey in Senegal (Enquète de Suivi de la Pauvreté au Sénégal) FNR National Retirement Fund (Fonds National de Retraite) FSC Food Security Commission (Commissariat à la Sécurité Alimentaire) FSGI Special Flood Management Fund (Fonds Spécial de Gestion des Inondations) FSN National Solidarity Fund (Fond de Solidarité Nationale) GDP Gross Domestic Product HEA Household Economy Approach IGA Income-Generating Activity IMS Information Management System
ii
IPAR Agricultural and Rural Forecasting Initiative (Initiative Prospective Agricole et Rurale) IPM Health Insurance Fund (Institut de Prévoyance Maladie) IPRES Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal (Institut de Prévoyance de Retraite du Sénégal) LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty LFI Initial Finance Bill (Loi de Finance Initiale) LFR Amending Finance Bill (Loi de Finance Rectificative) MDG Millennium Development Goal MEFP Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning (Ministère de l'Économie, Finances, et
Planning) MYBP Multi-Year Budget Planning NGO Non-Governmental Organization NSER National Socio-Economic Register OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Action ORSEC Public Safety Response Planning (Organisation de la Réponse de Sécurité Civile) OSB Livestock Protection Program (Opération de Sauvegarde du Bétail) PAPA Elderly Support Program (Project d'Appui à la Promotion des Aînés) PASEC Program for the Analysis of Educational Systems in CONFEMEN Countries (Programme
d'Analyse des Systèmes Éducatifs de la CONFEMEN) PLASEPRI Private Sector and Valorization of the Senegalese Diaspora in Italy Support Platform
(Plateforme d'Appui au Secteur Privé et à la Valorisation de la Diaspora Sénégalaise en Italie)
PMT Proxy Means Test PNBSF National Family Security Grants Program (Programme National de Bourses de Sécurité
Familiale) PRBC Community-Based Re-Adaptation Program (Programme de Réadaptation à la Base
Communautaire) PRNIA National Food Insecurity Response Program (Plan de Riposte Nationale à l'Insécurité
Alimentaire) PRODAC Community Agricultural Programs (Programme des Domaines Agricoles
Communautaires) PRODES Economic and Social Development Dynamics Support Program (Programme de
Renforcement des Dynamiques de Développement Économique et Social) PRP Poverty Reduction Program PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSE Emergent Senegal Plan (Plan Sénégal Émergent) RNU Single National Registry (Registre National Unique) SAR African Refinery Corporation (Société Africaine de Raffinage) SE/CNSA Executive Secretariat of the National Food Security Council (Secrétariat Exécutif du
Conseil National à la Sécurité Alimentaire) SENELEC National Electricity Company of Senegal (Société Nationale d'Éléctricité du Sénégal) SIGFIP Integrated Public Finances Management System (Système Intégré de Gestion des
Finances Publiques) SISBEN Social Subsidies Beneficiary Identification System (Sistema de Identificación de
Beneficiarios de Subsidios Sociales) SMART Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions SNPS National Social Protection Strategy (Stratégie Nationale de Protection Sociale) SO Strategic Objective TSA Targeted Social Assistance
iii
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USD United States Dollar WFP World Food Program
iv
List of Figures Figure 1: Chronology of the main shocks to Senegal’s agricultural production, 1980–2012 (2004–2006 = 100) ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Expenditure on social services sectors, in millions of CFAF and as share of government’s total social expenditure ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3: Comparing remittances, cash transfer programs, and total social protection expenditure ....... 23 Figure 4: Expenditure as share of total, by type of social protection ......................................................... 23 Figure 5: Total expenditure on social protection as share of GDP ............................................................. 24 Figure 6: Average expenditure on three types of social protection as share of GDP by country .............. 24 Figure 7: Total social protection expenditure, by funding source .............................................................. 25 Figure 8: Change in external funding as share of total expenditure, by program type .............................. 26 Figure 9: Total expenditure on social assistance programs ........................................................................ 27 Figure 10: Total expenditure on social assistance programs, excluding student grants ............................ 28 Figure 11: Expenditure on social assistance programs as share of total social assistance spending in Africa ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 12: Total social assistance expenditure by funding source ............................................................. 29 Figure 13: Comparison of expenditure on subsidies and social assistance, excluding higher education grants .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14: Total expenditure on crisis response programs......................................................................... 31 Figure 15: Total expenditure on employment programs, in millions of CFAF………………………………………….33 Figure 16: Expenditure on social insurance, in millions of CFAF ................................................................ 33 Figure 17: Expenditure on pensions as share of GDP ................................................................................. 34 Figure 18: Beneficiaries of the school feeding program ............................................................................. 41 Figure 19: Recipients of retirement and survivors’ pensions ..................................................................... 45 Figure 20: Percentage of the population over 60 receiving benefits under national pension systems ..... 45 Figure 21: FNR coverage and cost (% of GDP) ............................................................................................ 46 Figure 22: Percentage of programs, by targeting method ......................................................................... 47 Figure 23: Percentage of expenditure, by targeting type (2015) ............................................................... 48 Figure 24: Breakdown of students receiving university scholarships, by wealth quintile ......................... 49 Figure 25: Pension recipients over 60, by wealth quintile ......................................................................... 49 Figure 26: Percentage of active population with access to a healthcare system, by wealth quintile ........ 50 Figure 27: Use of social safety nets as shock response mechanism in Africa………………………………………….53 Figure 28: IPRES demographic profile ......................................................................................................... 57 Figure 29: Population breakdown by age group and projection ................................................................ 57 Figure 30: Rate of contribution to public sector retirement systems ........................................................ 58 Figure 31: Construction of social net systems in Africa .............................................................................. 63 Figure 32: Availability of financial resources and response to food insecurity (food security stock) ........ 69
List of Tables Table 1: Occurrence of self-reported shocks, in percentages ...................................................................... 6 Table 2: Shock response mechanism reported by households, in percentages ........................................... 7 Table 3: Strategic objectives of the 2015–2035 SNPS .................................................................................. 9 Table 4: Social assistance programs ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 5: Crisis-response programs .............................................................................................................. 13 Table 6: Employment programs .................................................................................................................. 15 Table 7: Social insurance programs ............................................................................................................ 18
v
Table 8: Description of pension schemes ................................................................................................... 18 Table 9: Total expenditure on social protection, in millions of CFAF ......................................................... 21 Table 10: Social protection programs through the life cycle ...................................................................... 36 Table 11: Coverage of cross-cutting programs ........................................................................................... 38 Table 12: Coverage of programs targeting children under 5 and pregnant women .................................. 40 Table 13: Coverage of programs benefiting children aged 5–15 ................................................................ 41 Table 14: Coverage of programs targeting people of working age ............................................................ 43 Table 15: Coverage of programs targeting people over the age of 60 ....................................................... 46 Table 16: Breakdown of vulnerable individuals and households, by poverty level .................................... 48 Table 17: Total school cafeteria expenditure, per beneficiary (in CFAF millions) ...................................... 51 Table 18: Total expenditure per beneficiary from preschooler item (in CFAF millions)............................. 51 Table 19: RNU population and percentage in poverty ............................................................................... 61 Table 20: Filters that could be used in the RNU ......................................................................................... 62 Table 21: Description of powers transferred in social sectors ................................................................... 65 Table 22: Social welfare budget for the city of Pikine (in CFAF millions).................................................... 67 Table 23: Change in budget allocation between initial finance bill (LFI) and amending finance bill (FLR) 70
List of Boxes Box 1: Choosing politically appropriate program parameters .................................................................... 52 Box 2: Impact of money transfer programs in Africa .................................................................................. 55 Box 3: How Brazil, Colombia, Ghana, and Senegal created a social register for better efficiency and greater impact ............................................................................................................................................. 60 Box 4: Institutional change and anchoring in law ....................................................................................... 64
vi
Acknowledgements: This report benefited from the contribution of Aline Coudouel, Serigne Moussa Dia, Ameth Faye, Melis Guven and Emma Montiel. The insightful comments of the peer reviewers – Julio Ricardo Loayza, Jamele Rigolini et Eric Zapatero Larrio – are greatly appreciated.
Standard Disclaimer This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The
World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The
World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,
denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the
part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of
such boundaries.
1
Chapter 1 – Context: Population, Vulnerability, and Poverty
I – Introduction
1. For the past fifteen years, Senegal has been committed to protecting vulnerable groups. Having
become aware of this issue in the early 2000s thanks to the diagnosis conducted during the participative
formulation process for Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) I implementation, Senegal made the
protection of vulnerable groups a strategic priority in each of its development plans. In 2013, an inter-
ministerial monitoring committee working as part of the National Social Protection Strategy (SNPS) was
established to improve coordination in the sector and enhance the efficiency of the social protection
system, and more specifically, the social safety net system.
2. The Government based the Emerging Senegal Plan (PSE) on the drafting of a Social Safety Net
System capable of responding to the issue of chronic poverty and the protection of populations
vulnerable to shocks. The strategy is based on three pillars: (i) growth, productivity, and the creation of
wealth; (ii) human capital, social protection, and sustainable development; and (iii) governance,
institutions, peace, and security. In October 2013, the Prime Minister began the Government’s General
Policy Declaration by defining how the social agenda would address the issue of vulnerability and by
underlining the special focus on improving access to basic, quality social services, the expansion of the
national monetary transfers program, access to universal health coverage, support for vulnerable
populations, and the implementation of job creation programs.
3. Although an analysis of social sector expenditure was conducted, it did not include the social
protection sector. For the first time, the Government, with the support of UNICEF, analyzed social sector
public expenditure from 2006 to 2013 (UNICEF, 2016). The purpose of this analysis was to aid policy
makers in the planning and management of public finances. This analysis is now to be conducted on a
yearly basis. Although this represents a major step forward in the planning and management of the social
sectors in general, it does not include a detailed review of social protection programs as it focuses
primarily on health and education expenditure. This is due in part to the fact that social protection is multi-
sectoral and that collecting information about the sector and determining its exact scope is particularly
difficult.
4. Faced with a lack of budget-related information about the sector, the inter-ministerial SNPS
steering committee recommended in December 2015 that an expenditure review of the sector be
carried out. The objectives of this review were to: (i) evaluate the budgets spent with regards to the needs
and allocated resources; (ii) analyze the coverage of social protection programs; and (iii) evaluate the
efficiency of key programs and of the system as a whole. This endeavor is the first of its kind in Senegal
and may serve as a stepping stone for the Government to conduct an annual review of the sector’s
expenditure and thus help improve its management.
II – Methodology
5. The review concerns only the list of programs approved by the technical support committee of
the inter-ministerial SNPS steering committee. These programs consist of the social protection programs
2
financed or implemented by the Government and considered the most important in the current social
protection system. In addition to these programs, the committee decided to include programs
contributing to job creation and promotion. Although they do not usually fall within the scope of social
protection in Senegal, they are considered internationally to be part of the sector as they directly
contribute to the objective of empowering and promoting social protection as defined in the PSE and
Strategic Objective (SO) 2 of the SNPS. This list is not exhaustive and was established based on the SNPS
technical committee’s consensus and knowledge (see Annex 1 for the list of programs included in the
review). Flagship programs implemented by the World Food Program (WTF) have been included in this
list given the size of the allocated budget and the number of intended beneficiaries.
6. Data was collected using the ASPIRE1 nomenclature for the period 2010–2015. As a result, a large
amount of data was collected in standard format and in as uniform a way as possible while also
contributing to the global effort to systematically collect data on social protection. Specifically, the data
collected included: (i) annual program data on number of beneficiaries, amounts spent under each
program, administrative costs, expenditure on services, and expenditure by technical and financial
partners; and ii) information on program characteristics, including the program start year, a description
of the target mechanism, program conditionality and implementation, etc., which are instrumental to
understanding how these programs operate.
7. The review focuses on four categories of social protection instruments: (i) social assistance, such
as monetary transfers, student loans, school feeding programs, and nutrition programs; (ii) emergency
and shock response programs; (iii) job market programs; and (iv) social security programs, such as
retirement benefits and health coverage. The author of the present study classified the social protection
instruments into these four categories based on the broad categories defined in the ASPIRE framework.
The emergency and shock response instruments were given their own category in order to highlight them
in the analysis as their connection to social assistance programs as well as their funding are topics of
current interest in Senegal. Although the social protection expenditure reviews often include subsidies in
these instrument categories, they were not included in this analysis due to the limited amount of data
available. However, they will be referred to in order to contribute to the examination and analysis of social
protection programs.
8. The financial and program data were collected from four main sources, firstly by using the budget
implementation figures generated by the Integrated Public Finances Management System (SIGFIP)
administered by the Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning’s (MEFP) Directorate of Informatics,
secondly by consulting with the implementing ministries and agencies and their annual reports, and finally
by using the spreadsheet on external funding of the Directorate of Investment of MEFP (2017). Total
expenditure for Education and Health data were obtained directly from the Directorate of Forecasting and
Economic Studies (DPEE).
1 Within the framework of the ASPIRE project, the Global Practice of the World Bank’s Social Protection and
Employment sector initiated the systematic collection of administrative data on total and disaggregated government expenditure on social assistance, social insurance, and employment programs as well as on social services and general grants throughout the world. The purpose of this comprehensive exercise is to create a transparent and comparable database that will enable the identification of long-term trends in social protection expenditure by program type as well as various criteria pertinent to policy outcomes.
3
9. This review is based on the social protection expenditure review manual (World Bank, 2009). The
documents consulted for this analysis included recent public expenditure reviews conducted in Africa and
South America as well as agricultural expenditure reviews (CRES et al., 2012), education expenditure
reviews (World Bank, 2015a), the social sector expenditure review (World Bank and UNICEF, 2016), the
food security in Senegal expenditure review (DAI/European Union, 2015), the World Bank Poverty
Assessment Report (2015b), and the IPAR agricultural subsidies review (2015).
10. Data collection was limited by several constraints. Weaknesses in the archiving system,
institutional changes, and the lack of a strong accounting, monitoring, and evaluation system led to a
significant loss of information over time. Annual reports dating back more than three years were difficult
to obtain, and the results these reports provided were not always exploitable. These constraints are
neither new nor specific to this review, being often mentioned in previous public expenditure reviews.
III – Population and Vulnerability to Shocks2
11. According to the 2013 general census, Senegal has a population of 13,508,715 inhabitants. 54.8%
of the population lives in rural areas and 23% lives in and around Dakar. From 2001 to 2011, the population
increased by 2.5% (World Bank, 2015c). The population comprises 1,618,363 households. Average
household size is 8 people. Life expectancy is 63.2 years for men and 66.5 years for women, with
disparities between rural and urban areas as well as between men and women. 5.9% of the population
reports suffer from a disability (mild disability: 4.2%; severe disability: 1.7%). More women are disabled
compared to men. Furthermore, 16.6% of the population states that they do not have a birth certificate,
and this rate reaches over 30% in some regions (Tambacounda, Kaffrine, Kolda).
12. Senegal is estimated to have a working-age population3 of 7,728,868 individuals. However, 49.7%
of individuals in this age group is inactive. Housewives represent 43.8% of the inactive population, while
students represent 30.4%. The potentially active population comprises 3,704,369 individuals. The activity
rate is slightly higher in rural areas (51.3%) than in urban areas (49.6%). Fully 25.7% of the potentially
active population are unemployed, yet nearly all of these unemployed (9 out of 10) are first-time job
seekers. Only 6.4% of the population has earned a bachelor’s degree or attained an equivalent level of
education. A total of 755,532 of Senegal’s households, or 49.5% of the population, report being
agricultural. However, only 11.4% of these households are affiliated with a producer’s organization. A very
large majority of these households are small producers who farmed less than 5 hectares during the 2011–
2012 crop year.
13. According to the recent analysis conducted by the World Bank (2016b) based on data from the
Senegal National Employment Survey, the situation of young people of working age is alarming. On the
one hand, the number of young people in the labor market increases every year. 200,000 young people
entered the labor market in 2000, compared to 300,000 in 2015, and this number will increase to
approximately 400,000 in 2025 and 670,000 in 2050. Meanwhile, economic conditions have worsened,
2 All of the data in this section are taken from the general census (ANSD, 2013) unless explicitly stated otherwise. 3 Aged 15 years or older.
4
and the job market is unable to provide work for everyone. Approximately 35% of young adults aged 15–
34 participate in the labor market, with disparities between men and women. In the 20–24 age bracket in
rural areas and the 25–29 bracket in urban areas, the majority of young women fall into the “neither/nor”
category in that they neither work nor study. However, this group is much smaller among young men,
ranging from 20 to 25% for those 25 or older. In addition to the low participation rate in the labor market,
approximately 27% of young people are underemployed (reporting that they work less than 40 hours a
week).
14. Despite the progress made in the past decade to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG), Senegal continues to earn low scores when it comes to infant, child, and maternal mortality
rates. The infant mortality rate is 39 per 1,000, and the neonatal mortality rate is 23 per 1,000 live births
(ANSD, 2015). Overall, 59 children out of 1,000 do not reach their fifth birthday (ANSD, 2015). The
maternal mortality rate shows large disparities depending on the region, varying from 921 deaths per
100,000 live births in Kedougou to 271 in Thiès, with the national average being 392 (ANSD, 2012).
15. The nutritional status of children aged 0 to 5 has improved since the 2000s but remains a major
concern. In 2014, the acute malnutrition rate was 5.9%, while the chronic malnutrition rate was 18.7% for
children aged 0–5 (ANSD, 2014).
16. According to the 2013 general census, the literacy rate has decreased over the past ten years.
Only 42.6% of people 6 years of age or older are literate, compared to 59% ten years ago, while 58.15%
of those aged 10–14 and 64.1% of those aged 15–19 are literate. The literacy rate then decreases with
age. The literacy rate is higher for urban populations compared to rural populations, and men are more
literate than women.
17. The level of education remains low. The latest results of the PASEC survey (2015) show that
approximately 40% of children cannot read at the end of their elementary education. Furthermore, the
dropout rate is high as only 40% of children finish elementary school (42% of boys, 37% of girls). Overall,
only one third of children of elementary school completion age can read and do basic math. In addition,
the census reveals discrimination in access to education for girls, beginning at age 13. From this age on,
the proportion of girls in total enrollment decreases through to the end of tertiary studies.
18. The vulnerability of children is very high. In 2014, 27.3% of children under 5 had not been
registered at birth, and this rate reached over 50% in some areas such as Kaffrine and Tambacounda
(UNICEF, 2016). The census revealed that 6.9% of children aged 6–14 participate in the labor market (a
rate that is slightly higher for boys). According to Human Rights Watch (2016), over 30,000 children
(primarily boys) beg on the streets of Dakar. Girls are victim of practices such as early marriage and genital
mutilation. According to the data recently published by UNICEF (2016), in 2013, 3.7% of girls aged 12–15
and 24.5% of girls aged 15–19 were married. In 2014, according to the same publication, it was estimated
that 12.9% of girls under 15 had undergone genital mutilation. These statistics vary greatly depending on
the region. For example, it is highly prevalent in Matam (52.6%), Sedhiou (50.5%), and Kolda (45.7%),
while it is close to zero in regions such as Diourbel, Thiès, and Kaolack.
5
Shocks Affecting Senegal and Its Households4
19. Senegal’s economy is often affected by major shocks that affect its economic performance.
Exogenous shocks, notably the increase in the price of imported goods or the effects of the global
economic recession, have a significant impact on Senegal because of the nature of its economy, as was
clearly demonstrated during the 2008–2009 financial, food, and oil crises. Senegal imports all of its oil
(which serves to produce the majority of the electricity consumed), and 80% and 100% of its consumption
of rice and wheat, respectively. In 2007–2008, the local market price of rice tripled, grain prices increased
by 50%, and that of other staples such as sugar, wheat, and milk increased by 30%. The rise in fuel prices
had a significant impact on the energy sources of the poorest households, such as butane gas. However,
in recent years, Senegal’s economy has benefited from lower oil prices and stable food prices.
20. Flooding represents a particular threat for urban and suburban areas, while droughts primarily
affect rural areas. Given the dependence on subsistence agriculture of many households, the cultivation
of rain-fed seed varieties and the high poverty levels in rural areas, droughts, and locust infestations can
have a significant impact on the country’s food security. For example, as a result of the 2011 drought,
agricultural production fell by 20%, and 25% of households considered themselves food insecure in 2013
compared to 15% in 2011. This also had an impact on malnutrition, as the number of stunted children
increased to 26.5% (compared to 19.6 in 2005) (ANSD, 2012; ANSD, 2015).
Figure 1, which is taken from the Senegal Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment (World Bank, 2015d), shows
the chronology of the main shocks that affected agricultural production from 1980 to 2012. Over 33 years,
Senegal’s agricultural sector faced 10 significant shocks.
Source: World Bank, Senegal Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment, 2015d
4 The following paragraphs are taken from two World Bank documents: République du Sénégal: Évaluation des filets sociaux (2013) and Revue diagnostique du financement de la réponse aux catastrophes (2016 a).
FIGURE 1: CHRONOLOGY OF THE MAIN SHOCKS TO SENEGAL’S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, 1980–2012 (2004–2006 = 100)
6
21. In addition to this variability in rainfall over the short term, Senegal faces a decrease in rainfall
over the long term. From 1960 to 2000, annual rainfall decreased regularly, dropping from 650 to 600
millimeters. Over the same period, peanut production fell from 1 million to 750 thousand tons. Climate
change affects the variability of rainfall and climate patterns and compounds the impact of flooding and
drought. Given the current climate change trajectory in Senegal, agricultural production modeling
research suggests a yield loss of 5–25% by 2050.
Senegalese households are affected by covariant and idiosyncratic shocks and have few strategies for confronting them 5
22. Senegalese households are affected by covariant and idiosyncratic shocks.6 According to data
from ESPS II, households are most frequently affected by the following shocks:7 illness or serious accident,
loss of livestock, and loss of harvest through fire, drought, or flooding. These shocks are much more
frequent in rural areas compared to urban areas. Twice as many poor households report having been
affected by at least one shock the year before (more than 40% for the two poorest quintiles compared to
16.5% for the richest quintile).
TABLE 1: OCCURRENCE OF SELF-REPORTED SHOCKS, IN PERCENTAGES
Quintile
Place of
Residence
Type of Shock Total 1 2 3 4 5 Urban Rural
Death of family breadwinner 5.0 6.3 6.5 5.0 4.2 3.1 4.0 6.0
Illness or serious accident 11.5 11.9 15 14.4 10.1 6.2 8.1 14.8
Loss of employment 3.1 1.7 4.1 3.3 1.9 4.3 4.1 2.0
Bankruptcy of family business 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.5
Loss of harvest (fire, drought, flooding, etc.) 7.4 13.8 9.7 8.2 4.1 1.3 1 13.6
Loss of livestock (fire, disease, theft, etc.) 9.2 14.9 13.9 10.0 5.6 1.5 0.9 17.2
Significant loss of income (temporary layoff, etc.) 2.0 1.6 2.2 3.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1
Partial or complete loss of home (fire, flooding,
etc.) 2.8 4.0 3.4 2.9 2.4 1.1 1.6 3.9
Loss of main means of production 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.4
At least one of these shocks 31.9 40.2 40.4 36 26.5 16.5 20.1 43.3
Source: Échevin (2012) based on ESPS data (ANSD, 2011)
5 The following paragraphs are taken from République du Sénégal: Évaluation des filets sociaux (2013) 6 Covariant shocks affect all households in a given zone or group, while idiosyncratic shocks affect only the household
concerned. 7 Based on household self-reporting.
7
23. Over half of households lack a specific adaptation strategy for dealing with shocks. As shown by
Table 2, nearly one quarter of households reported having used their savings to deal with a shock,
especially if it concerned their health (risk of illness or death) or bankruptcy. Selling personal property was
the most common alternative strategy, despite the fact that it can lead to poverty in the long term due to
the loss of assets. Family support within the country or from abroad was mentioned by 27% of the
respondents. Other sources of support were minimal. Only 2% of cases received support from an NGO,
and government aid was only mentioned by 1% of households. This shock response pattern reveals the
high vulnerability of households. In effect, the majority of them have no formal adaptation strategy, and
when they do have one, it primarily relies on selling assets or using savings, both of which are less
accessible options for the poor. Since the loss of livestock and harvest were the shocks the poorest
households mentioned most often and are also the shocks for which there are the fewest adaptation and
aid strategies, the situation could have serious repercussions on adaptation strategies that are negative
in the short term and perpetuate poverty traps in the long term.
TABLE 2: SHOCK RESPONSE MECHANISM REPORTED BY HOUSEHOLDS, IN PERCENTAGES
Types of Shocks Govt.
Aid
NGO,
OBC
Support
Sale of
Assets
Use of
Savings
Loan Family
Support
within
Country
Family
Support
from
Abroad
Aid
from
Friends
No
Strategy
Death of the family
breadwinner 0.9 2.3 12.5 24.9 8.8 31.2 14.0 17.1 38.7
Illness or serious accident
1.2 3.4 25.9 36.3 12.5 27.7 16.4 15.8 18.9
Loss of employment 0.1 0.5 12.2 19.2 7.7 13.9 4.7 11.1 60.4
Bankruptcy of family business 0.0 0.0 26.8 30.7 27.5 1.5 0.4 6.2 36.3
Loss of harvest (fire,
drought, flooding, etc.)
0.7 0.8 7.0 6.3 7.5 5.2 2.3 2.2 77.6
Loss of livestock (fire,
disease, theft, etc.) 0.3 0.5 7.5 6.1 2.2 1.2 0.3 0.9 82.0
Significant loss of
income (temporary
layoff, etc.)
3.4 0.0 3.5 11.3 9.1 14.8 3.9 12.0 62.3
Partial or complete loss
of home (fire, flooding,
etc.)
2.1 3.0 8.3 12.5 2.9 3.7 1.7 2.7 66.4
Loss of main means of production 0.0 1.2 0.4 16.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 8.4 57.2
Source: Échevin (2012) based on ESPS data (ANSD, 2011).
8
IV – Senegal’s Poverty Profile8
24. Despite a marked decrease in Senegal’s poverty rate in the early 2000s, this began to stagnate
in 2005, reaching 46.7% in 2011, and extreme poverty has not decreased significantly since 2001. Recent
analyses using a new consumption aggregation show that the poverty rate decreased between 2 and 6
percentage points over the period 2011–20159 (World Bank, 2016d). Although the poverty rate fell from
55.2% to 46.7% over 10 years, the number of poor people continued to increase, exceeding 6.3 million in
2011, while the poverty rate in rural areas is twice as high as in Dakar. Extreme poverty stands at around
14.8%. The depth of poverty from the poverty line fell slightly, from 17.2% in 2005 to 14.5% in 2011, while
the poverty severity index fell from 7.3 to 6.6 over the same period. However, the slight increase in these
indicators in urban areas (not including Dakar) shows that the well-being of the poorest populations in
these zones has deteriorated. The decrease in the acceleration of poverty over the period 2001–2011 can
be explained by the low growth that began in 2005. Moreover, this growth was not inclusive and did not
benefit the poor or the lowest 40% of the population.
25. Poor households generally consist of several individuals who lack education and work in
agriculture or the informal sector. In 2011, 80% of poor households had 10 or more members, and over
one quarter had over 20 members. 83% of poor heads of households had not received a formal education.
The number of poor people living in households headed by a woman was also much lower (34.7%)
compared to that of households led by a man (50.6%).
26. Poverty more often affects rural areas but is concentrated in Dakar in terms of population size.
Nearly 70% of the poor and 84% of the extreme poor lived in rural areas in 2011, while 13% of the poor
and 2% of the extreme poor lived in Dakar. Regionally, poverty is concentrated in Dakar and its
neighboring regions due to their significant population density. Casamance also has a strong
concentration of poverty, with a higher poverty rate than the national average. The lowest poverty rates
are found in Niayes region and the Senegal River valley, which have irrigation infrastructures and
horticultural production.
27. Many Senegalese households are highly vulnerable to idiosyncratic and covariant shocks, and
populations around the poverty line frequently move in and out of poverty. Idiosyncratic shocks such as
illness or the death of the head of household can affect up to 20% of households each year. Agricultural
households are highly vulnerable to climate-related shocks due to their lack of assets and limited access
to loans or insurance. Selling what little property they own is often their only way to limit the impact of
the shock, even though it compromises their future income. Education appears to be an essential factor
in helping households move out of poverty and in reducing their risk of falling into poverty. Disabilities
are also a factor associated with chronic poverty.
8 All of the data in this section are taken from the Poverty Assessment (World Bank, 2015b) unless explicitly stated
otherwise. 9 The next poverty assessment is scheduled for 2017 and will further refine these analyses.
9
Chapter 2 – The Social Protection Sector in Senegal and Programs Covered by the Review
28. The Emerging Senegal Plan (PSE) defines social protection as a set of measures that aim to protect citizens from social risks. Social protection includes public social security and private or community-based schemes. It involves three principles: assistance, insurance benefits, and empowerment of social categories. This definition aligns with that articulated by the World Bank in its 2012–2022 strategy, which states that “social protection and labor systems, policies, and programs help individuals and societies manage risk and volatility and protect them from poverty and destitution through instruments that improve resilience, equity, and opportunity.” 29. Written in 2005, the first National Social Protection Strategy (SNPS) covered a 10-year period. The new SNPS adopted in 2017 will orient social protection policy through to 2035. This new national strategy adopts the PSE’s definition of social protection. The long-term objective of the SNPS is to build a social protection system that benefits all Senegalese men and women, guarantees a minimum income for all, and provides health insurance and safety nets in order to strengthen the resilience of individuals experiencing shocks and crises that could cause them to slip into poverty. The strategy includes five strategic objectives based on the lifecycle. Each objective aligns with one or more of the social protection objectives outlined in the PSE (Table 3).
TABLE 3: STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE 2015–2035 SNPS PSE social protection objectives 2015–2035 SNPS Strategic Objectives (SO) Assistance Insurance Empowerment SO1: Support integrated social protection for all children X X
SO2: Set up programs and schemes for people of working age
X X
SO3: Set up a system of guaranteed minimum income and health coverage for the elderly
X X
SO4: Set up an integrated social security system for those who are disabled or unable to work X X X
SO5: Strengthen community resilience to shocks and disasters
X X X
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
30. This review covers 50 social protection programs implemented during the 2010–2015 period. All
50 programs were administered by the government, with the exception of the WFP food vouchers and
school feeding program and private sector social insurance programs. All programs meet at least one of
the social protection objectives outlined in the PSE (assisting, insuring, and empowering individuals and
households against social risks).
31. These programs are heterogeneous and have few overlaps. Some are new, while others are older.
Some are implemented nationwide, others in only a few regions, and some are entirely government-
funded while others are funded primarily by external resources. (See Table 4 for a complete list of
10
programs included in this review.)
I – Social Assistance Programs
32. This review covers 20 social assistance programs. These can be grouped into six sub-categories:
(i) cash transfer programs; (ii) student grants; (iii) targeted subsidies to improve healthcare access by
vulnerable groups; (iv) school feeding programs; (v) nutrition programs; and (vi) social services for
children.10 These social assistance programs vary in terms of budget and number of beneficiaries. All are
nationwide (except the school feeding program, which was designed on a national scale but implemented
by different actors, and the nutrition programs, which use geographic targeting based on malnourishment
data). However, despite being national programs, most reach a limited number of beneficiaries, with only
3 programs impacting more than one million beneficiaries yearly. The others reach from a few hundred
individuals (3 programs) to a few hundred thousand (5 programs), while 7 programs involve targeted
subsidies for improving healthcare access. While 4 programs involve childcare services, 3 of them have
between 0 and a few hundred beneficiaries. These 20 programs are implemented by 11 different agencies
or ministries. Table 4 lists and describes these programs.
TABLE 4: SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Program Program description Start date Implementing agency
Cash transfer programs
1 National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF)
Quarterly cash transfers of CFAF 25,000
to the poorest households for a period of
5 years
2013 General Delegation for Social Protection and National Solidarity
2 Program to reduce child vulnerability
Cash transfers to households with vulnerable children to help them keep children in school and provide them with healthcare services
Ministry of the Family – Directorate of Child Protection
3
Support program for wards of the state
Cash transfers to orphans (many orphaned by the 2002 Joola capsizing disaster)
National Office for Wards of the State
Student grants
4 Grants for higher
education
Grants for higher learning (full or partial tuition) for all university students in Senegal or abroad
2007
Ministry of Higher Education – Directorate of Higher Education Grants
Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care
10 The author based these categories on ASPIRE groupings and on what was important to emphasize about Senegal.
For instance, student grants are not an independent category in ASPIRE but are included in the Cash Transfers category. Given the budget these programs receive in Senegal, the author opted to distinguish them from cash transfer programs.
11
5 Medical care for the destitute
Provides medical coverage for the
destitute 2009
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
6 HIV/AIDS program Provides screening and treatment for
people affected by HIV 2001 National AIDS Council
7 SESAME Plan Guarantees access to healthcare for people over the age of 60
2006 Universal Health Coverage Agency
8 Free healthcare for children under 5
Children under 5 receive medical care at no cost
2013 Universal Health Coverage Agency
9
Insurance branch of Universal Health Coverage
Medical insurance through community-based health plans. Plan enrolment fees subsidized by the government (50%–100% of cost, or CFAF 3,500–7,000
2015 Universal Health Coverage Agency
10 Free cesarean
sections
Covers labor and cesarean sections in health centers and hospitals
2004 Universal Health Coverage Agency
11 Dialysis Covers the cost of dialysis services 2010 Universal Health Coverage Agency
School feeding programs
12
School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding programs
Offers one hot meal per day in
elementary and secondary schools in
rural and peri-urban areas
2006
Ministry of Education –
Directorate of School
feeding programs
13 WFP School feeding Program
Offers one hot meal per day in
elementary and secondary schools in
rural and peri-urban areas
1970 World Food Program
Nutrition programs
14 Community nutrition program
Aims to provide each Senegalese citizen with adequate nutrition and promotes nutritional habits to maximize well-being and community development. Screening, awareness, and distribution of therapeutic foods.
2002
National Committee to Combat Malnourishment
15
Social transfers to combat malnourishment
Temporary cash transfer programs to combat malnourishment and promote prenatal care for pregnant women
2009
National Committee to
Combat
Malnourishment
Services for children
12
16
Program for
disadvantage
d children
Assists vulnerable children (talibés, street children, orphans, etc.): education kits, subsidies for Islamic schools, training, etc.
2005
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
17 Community
daycare Community daycare for children under 3 2013
Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
18 Program for street
children Helps get children off the street 2004
Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
19 Early childhood
education program
Education centers for children aged 3–6. Includes learning, medical care, and nutritional support
2002 National Agency for Early
Childhood Education
Other
20 Equal Opportunity
Cards (CEC)
CECs help people with disabilities access equipment, training, healthcare, etc.
2014
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
33. Four of these programs merit further description due to their scope and budget. The National
Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF) began in December 2013. It provides conditional cash transfers
to Senegal’s poorest households. Beneficiaries receive CFAF 25,000 per quarter for five years and must
attend all sensitization workshops offered by the program. The program identifies the eligible
beneficiaries through the unique registry. At the end of 2016, the program had 300,000 beneficiaries.
34. Senegal has adopted a strategy aiming to provide health coverage to 75% of the population by
the end of 2017. This strategy proposes multiple mechanisms for improving healthcare access, including:
(i) free healthcare services for children under 5; (ii) free healthcare services for people over 60; (iii)
extending health insurance coverage to the informal sector and rural areas; (iv) a private sector health
insurance system; and (v) healthcare coverage for public sector employees. To provide coverage to 75%
of the population and to extend medical coverage to informal sector and rural workers, the government
established the Insurance Branch of Universal Health Coverage in 2014, which provides healthcare to the
most vulnerable households by subsidizing health plan enrolment fees. This program covers 100% of the
cost of health plans (CFAF 7,000) for beneficiaries of family security grants and CECs and 50% of the cost
for others. Only households without current medical coverage are expected to enroll in the program, and
the subsidy will not be available to individuals working in the formal sector with private sector health
coverage – often the wealthiest – or to public sector employees.
35. The grants program for higher education began in 1982, and the decree creating it has not been
revised since then. Unlike many grants programs throughout the world, this program was not designed to
13
promote equity among students, foster excellence, encourage certain training programs, or attract the
brightest students. Instead, it was designed as a universal grant available to all full-time students. The
amount (full, two thirds, or one half of grant) is determined by performance and level of education. A full
grant amounts to CFAF 36,000 per month. As of 2014, over 70% of students received a grant (full or
partial).
36. The other program with broad coverage is the community nutrition program. This includes
growth monitoring and promotion, malnourishment screening and treatment, activities to combat
micronutrient deficiencies, and behavior modification activities. This program covers 400 municipalities
(out of 557).
37. Family support is a critical component of social assistance. Family support is one of the most
important strategies for withstanding shocks (see Table 5). While it does not receive government funding,
it is a vital mechanism of social assistance and one the population sustains on its own in order to
compensate for services the government cannot provide. According to the Poverty Monitoring Survey
(ESPS) II, 71% of private transfers (national and international remittances) are used for everyday food
consumption. As the next section shows, the amount of this type of support can be several times greater
than what households spend on social protection.
II – Programs for Emergencies and Response to Shocks
38. Senegal has several mechanisms and programs in place for responding to the shocks and
emergency situations described below. A total of 6 crisis response programs have been identified. Two
programs target drought (or rainfall shortages) and food insecurity (for people and livestock). The National
Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) is implemented by the Food Security Commission (FSC), the
WFP, and NGOs. Three programs target households affected by floods and fires. Two programs target
farmers affected by climate shocks. Data on the exact number of beneficiaries are unavailable, and no
overarching coordination mechanism is in place for these programs.
TABLE 5: CRISIS-RESPONSE PROGRAMS
Shock Program Description Ministry and
Agency
Beneficiaries Trigger
Drought and rainfall shortages
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA)
Distributes food assistance through the national response program (PNRIA)
Food Security Commission (FSC)
Populations facing food insecurity identified by the Executive Secretariat of the National Food Security Council (SE/CNSA)
At the discretion of the Prime Minister; no clear trigger thresholds in place
14
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA)
Distributes food assistance through the national response program (PNRIA)
World Food Program
Populations facing food insecurity identified by SEA/CNSA or HEA
At discretion of the Prime Minister; no clear trigger thresholds in place
Livestock Protection Program (OSB)
Subsidy covering 50% of feed costs
Ministry of Livestock
Vulnerable livestock; farmer selection system unclear
Livestock feed is subsidized in targeted areas from May to July, scaled up or down depending on drought conditions
Fires, floods As needed
Distributes in-
kind and financial
support to
affected
households
National Solidarity Fund (FSN)
Vulnerable households affected by shocks requesting support
Ad hoc, based on FSN assessments and official requests from governors
Floods As needed
Finances flood prevention and flood response (generally pumping and assistance for affected households)
Special Fund for Flood Management (FSGI)
Households affected by floods, populations in severely flooded areas
Official request from governors and emergency responders
Agricultural risks
Agricultural Disaster Fund
Debt relief and financial support for farmers
National Farm Credit Bank of Senegal (CNCAS)
Account holders at CNCAS
Unknown
Crop insurance
Government-subsidized (50%) crop insurance from CNAAS
National Crop Insurance Fund of Senegal (CNAAS)
Mostly commercial farmers (average farm size: 1 hectare)
Index insurance based on climate data (rainfall as measured at weather stations) and traditional insurance
Source: World Bank, 2016a
15
III – Employment Programs
39. In Senegal, social protection programs and actors working on coordinating the sector tend to
overlook employment. While SO 2 of the new SNPS aims to create programs and plans for people of
working age, it only refers to passive labor programs (unemployment benefits and maternity benefits),
not to any intermediation or active labor programs. Senegal’s National Employment Strategy (2015–2019)
is a cornerstone of the fight against poverty. In fact, the PSE’s definition of social protection specifically
mentions empowerment. However, in Senegal, few—if any—direct links exist between employment
programs and the social protection sector.
40. What little data were collected about employment programs were obtained primarily through
document review. (See Table 6 below for details of the programs.) Since Senegal has no intermediation
programs or passive labor market programs, the author did not use ASPIRE categories in this section but
instead designed categories that seemed appropriate for classifying Senegal’s existing programs. These
are: (i) Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable; (ii) programs supporting
entrepreneurship; and (iii) vocational training programs. A total of 6 funds or programs expired between
2010 and 2015, and 8 current programs or funds were identified. The 6 expired programs ended due to
dependence on external financial resources or the merger of multiple funds targeting youth into a single
fund in order to improve efficiency. This review does not cover all programs. Collecting data about these
programs was difficult due to their being small, fragmented, poorly represented in terms of social
protection, or heavily dependent on external funding.
TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
Program Description Start date
End date
(if any)
Implementing agency
Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable
1 Support project for the elderly (PAPA)
Promotes IGAs for vulnerable elderly persons (60+) through training, micro-loans, and subsidies; also supports groups of individuals
2007
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
2
Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support implementation of the poverty strategy
Grants and micro-loans for poor people 2008 2013
Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
3
Economic and Social Development Dynamics Support Program (PRODES)
Combats poverty; supports the creation of IGAs for the poorest populations
2013
Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
16
4
Program to empower persons and families affected by leprosy
Improves living conditions of persons affected by leprosy – equipment transfers, micro-loans, IGAs
2010
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
5 Community-based re-adaptation program (PRBC)
Social and economic integration of disabled persons via training and funding for IGAs
2006
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
Entrepreneurship programs
6 Private sector support platform (PLASEPRI)
Promotes participation in the private sector by Senegalese immigrants so they can support their country’s economic development
2008 2015 Ministry of the Family
7 Financing for young peoples’ business ideas
Finances start-up activities 2013 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
8 Program for the professional insertion of young people
Promotes the hiring of young people in the formal sector
2014 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
9 National fund for the employment of young people
Finances self-employment projects through a national government-employer agreement
2000 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
10 National fund for the promotion of young people
Finances business projects of persons aged 18–35 without requiring a personal contribution or guarantee
2013 Ministry of Employment and Young People
11 National fund for women entrepreneurs
Promotes the training and strengthens the capacities of current and potential businesswomen;
• Provides support for preparing business plans;
• Finances projects by women entrepreneurs or led by women;
• Monitors projects;
• Guarantees loans from savings and loan associations
2004 Ministry of the Family
12 Agency for youth and suburban employment
Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, and self-employment
2012 2013 Ministry of Employment and Young People
17
13 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
Provides information, consulting, and support for the creation of livelihoods
2001 2013 Ministry of Employment and Young People
14 Financing support for entrepreneurship
2013 Ministry of Finance
15 Program for community agricultural areas
2013 Ministry of Youth and Recreation
Vocational training programs
16
Support program for vocational training and professional insertion
Targets the development of high-quality vocational and technical training equally accessible to males and females and meets the needs of social and economic development
2010
Ministry of Vocational Training, Apprenticeships, and Crafts
17 Office for the training and employment of suburban youth
Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, and self-employment
2001 2011 Ministry of Employment and Young People
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
41. The majority of current programs are active labor market programs. These programs primarily
target young people, women, and farmers, while 4 specifically target vulnerable persons (elderly,
disabled, poor, etc.), but are quite narrow. Only 1 current program consists of a labor market
intermediation program. This new program is managed by ANPEJ. At present, its coverage and budget
are very limited. The other program targets vocational training for young people and is financed almost
exclusively by technical and financial partners. Programs targeting labor-intensive jobs are still
underdeveloped. There is currently no passive labor market program (unemployment insurance or early
retirement). Current employment programs are implemented by 6 different ministries or agencies. Their
annual budgets range from a few thousand to several billion CFAF.
42. Some Senegalese actors view programs classified in this review as employment programs as
social assistance programs since they target vulnerable populations. However, this review opted to
classify them as employment programs given their objectives (support for entrepreneurship or micro-
project financing). In most cases, these programs are implemented by the Ministry of the Family or the
Ministry of Health and Social Action.
IV – Social Insurance Programs
43. Social insurance programs include pensions, medical insurance, and family services. Table 7 lists
the social insurance programs included in this review.
18
TABLE 7: SOCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS
Program Description Start date Implementing agency
1 Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal (IPRES)
Pension fund for private sector employees
1977 IPRES
2 National Pension Fund
(FNR) Pension fund for public sector employees
1962 Ministry of Finance – National Pension Fund
(FNR)
3 Workers compensation and work-related illness (CSS)
Insures private sector employees
against work-related accidents 1975
Social Security Fund
(CSS)
4 Family benefits (CSS)
Families contributing to the CSS can receive CFAF 7,800 per quarter per child (maximum of 6 children)
1975 Social Security Fund
(CSS)
5 Health and social welfare
services
Health services for private sector
employees 1975
Social Security Fund
(CSS)
6 Maternity leave Maternity leave for private sector
employees 1975
Social Security Fund
(CSS)
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
44. The Senegalese pension system includes two mandatory schemes: i) the Retirement Savings Fund
of Senegal (IPRES), which covers private sector employees, government employees without civil servant
status, and local government employees, and ii) the National Pension Fund (FNR), which covers public
sector employees and members of the armed forces. IPRES is an autonomous institution operating under
the joint technical and financial authority of the Ministry of the Civil Service, Labor, and Institutional
Relations and the Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning (MEFP). The FNR is a special treasury
fund. Administrative management is provided by the Directorate of Salaries, Pensions, and Annuities
(DSPRV) with financial management provided by the General Directorate of Public Accounting and the
Treasury (DGCPT). The mandate of the DSPRV is to authorize pension-related expenditures. Pension
payments are made by the Public Treasury. The National Pension Fund does not have the authority to
independently invest surpluses. However, the government does provide financing in the event of
shortfalls.
TABLE 8: DESCRIPTION OF PENSION SCHEMES
Parameters IPRES FNR
Pension type Defined benefits scheme based on a
points system
Benefits determined on a pay-as-
you-go basis
Contribution rate General scheme: 14% Supplemental scheme: 6%
(employee pays 40% and employer
pays 60%)
35% (12% by employee and 23% by
employer)
Retirement age 60 years of age (55 for certain jobs) and early retirement at 53
60 (55 for the armed forces)
19
Accrual rate11 Pension amount calculated by multiplying the number of points earned by the base point value
2% in 2002 and 1.8% since 2002 per year of contribution
Basis for determining
pensions
First 36 months of contributions Average salary during last 3 years of
work Minimum years required to qualify for pension rights
At least 1 year and at least 400 points (15 years for full pension)
30 years (25 for the armed forces)
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
45. IPRES is a defined benefits pension system in which contributions by current workers fund the
pensions of retired people. The system is based on points. In a points system, a person earns points for
each year of contributions. The number of points earned each year is determined by three factors: the
salary from which contributions are deducted, average salary, and the length of time during the year the
person contributed to the system. Upon retirement, all points earned are added up and multiplied by the
value of the base point. The contribution rate for the general IPRES pension scheme is 14% of salary, 8.4%
of which is paid by employers and 5.6% by employees. The general IPRES pension scheme covers private
sector employees, government employees without civil servant status, seasonal workers, and day
laborers. The Supplemental Scheme offers additional coverage to senior-level employees. The pension
system covers old age, disability, and survivors benefits for eligible beneficiaries. Conditions for receiving
retirement benefits are having reached the retirement age of 60 (with early retirement available at 53)
and having accumulated a minimum of 400 points. Survivors’ pensions total 50% of the amount of the
retirement benefit or the disability pension the deceased person was receiving or was entitled to receive. A
survivor’s pension paid to a widow between 45 and 49 years of age without any dependent children is reduced by
5% yearly until she reaches 50 years of age. If the pensioner designated more than one widow to receive survivors’
benefits, the pension is divided among them equally.
46. FNR is a defined contribution pension scheme for public sector employees. To receive a pension,
claimants must be 60 years of age (55 for the armed forces) and have worked for at least 30 years (25 for
the armed forces). The system has a high contribution rate and a relatively high accrual rate. Generally
speaking, a 1.8% accrual rate per year with 30 years of service amounts to an income replacement rate of
54% upon retirement. In contrast, the IPRES system has an accrual rate of only 1.3% per year. Pension
benefits are determined by the average salary during the last three years of work. Although not unusual
in the region, calculating pension benefits on the basis of salary earned during the last three years of work
instead of contributions earlier in employees' careers when they earned a lower salary can prove costly
for the pension system.
47. For public sector employees, health insurance is provided by the government. This mandatory
scheme for government employees with or without civil servant status and their families was set up by
Decree 72-215 of March 7, 1972 relative to the social security coverage of civil servants. This system is
government-funded as a budget item. The government covers all transport costs related to medical
evacuations. The costs of hospitalizations and treatment services are shared between the government
11 Source: http://www.ipres.sn/institut/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&Itemid=59
20
and the patient (80%/20% respectively). This system covers roughly 300,000 beneficiaries (66,000
employees and their dependents). However, financial data about this type of insurance plan could not be
collected. Total health care expenditure would have been higher if this expenditure had not been omitted.
In fact, this expenditure accounts for the majority of government health insurance spending.
48. Private sector employees must be enrolled in the Social Security Fund (CSS). The CSS administers
family benefits and workers compensation. Contributions are paid by employers (7% for family benefits
and 1%–5% for workers compensation). Family benefits include maternity leave and child benefits.
Maternity leave is 14 weeks, and maternity pay is based on daily wages. Family benefits cover:
- Prenatal benefits: Quarterly cash transfers to households during pregnancy (CFAF 4,500–9,000); - Maternity benefits: Quarterly cash transfers from the child’s birth until age 24 months (CFAF
6,750–13,000); - Child benefits: Cash transfers paid quarterly for each child in the household aged 2–21 years of
age (up to 6 children) (CFAF 7,800 per child).
- Health and social services include healthcare for mothers and children at two facilities
(Guédiawaye and Kolda). The cost of these services is negligible, as is the number of beneficiaries.
21
Chapter 3 – 2010‒2015 Social Protection Expenditure I – Overview of Social Protection Sector
50. For the purpose of this review, total expenditure consists of expenditure funded directly by the
finance bill, social security fund expenditure funded in full by contributions or financially independent,
and expenditure funded from external resources. Unless otherwise indicated, all expenditure are given
in nominal value.
51. Social protection expenditure12 increased for the period. Excluding 2011, total expenditure on
social protection rose every year. Total expenditure in 2015 was 38% higher than in 2010. Among social
protection expenditure, employment programs saw the largest gains between 2010 and 2015. (Note,
however, that the percentage increase is not informative since expenditure levels were highly uneven.)
Social assistance expenditure increased by 38%, and social insurance expenditure increased by 31% over
the period.
TABLE 9: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL PROTECTION, IN MILLIONS OF CFAF
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2010 ‒
2015
change
(% in
nominal
terms)
Social assistance 58,749 52,991 60,686 79,105 90,996 80,916 38%
Crisis response 10,016 7,381 20,673 14,308 14,346 11,715 17%
Employment programs
5,287 4,885 5,998 11,583 8,385 18,272 246%
Social insurance 129,737 133,475 150,626 153,290 164,806 169,806 31%
Total social protection expenditure
203,789 198,732 237,983 258,286 278,533 280,709 38%
Total social protection expenditure, in real terms
155,327 144,890 172,150 187,694 201,462 205,364 32%
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
52. Spending on social protection accounted for a small share of government expenditure compared
to spending on other social services (Figure 2). Total expenditure on education varied between 20% and
25% of total government spending, whereas expenditure on healthcare varied between 10% and 12%. On
average, total expenditure on social protection was only half the amount (52%) spent on education over
the same period.13 As a share of total government spending, expenditure on social insurance (7.2%)
12 Figures for expenditure on IPRES pensions and social security (CSS) were not available for 2015. Expenditure from
2014 were used to keep the same order of magnitude. The number of beneficiaries was also taken from 2014 for the same reasons.
13 Expenditure on social protection programs overseen by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education, such as the CMU and school meals were extracted from total expenditure on healthcare and education.
22
exceeded expenditure on healthcare (6.1%) on average for the period. However, expenditure on
healthcare exceeded expenditure on social assistance, crisis response, and employment combined, which
accounted for only 4.4% of total government spending on average for the period. Spending on various
social services and programs trended together, except in 2014, when spending on education grew sharply.
Source: Author, based on collected data
FIGURE 2: EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL SERVICES SECTORS, IN MILLIONS OF CFAF AND AS SHARE OF GOVERNMENT’S TOTAL SOCIAL
EXPENDITURE
23
53. In comparison to cash transfer
programs made within families
(remittances),14 expenditure on social
protection was negligible (Figure 3).
with total social protection expenditure
equivalent to 30% of total remittances
between 2010 and 2014.15 According to
ESPS data, in 2011, remittances totaled
CFAF 346 billion,16 or 170% more than
total government expenditure on social
protection. Government expenditure on
social assistance was equal to around
10% of total remittances.
54. Over the 2010–2015 period,
expenditure on various categories of
social protection as a share of total
expenditure remained stable (Figure 4).
Social insurance programs made up the
largest share of social protection
spending, accounting for 59–67% for the
entire period. Social assistance
programs’ share of expenditure varied
between 25% and 32% of total social
protection expenditure, while the share
of employment programs was rather
small and uneven over the period. This
was also true of crisis response
programs and food security programs,
which varied between 3% and 8% of
total expenditure for the period.
14 Remittances and national transfer payments. 15 Calculations of remittances are based on methods developed by Ratha and Shaw, 2007, “South-South Migration
and Remittances,” Development Prospects Group, World Bank. Figures for transfer payments were disaggregated by analyzing flows of recipient and remitting countries as well as the estimated number of migrants.
16 It is likely that undervaluation of these data occurred as a result of constraints in data collection.
FIGURE 3: COMPARING REMITTANCES, CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMS, AND
TOTAL SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
Source: Author, compilation of data from the Bilateral Remittances Matrix, World Bank, using ESPS II and data collected for the review
FIGURE 4: EXPENDITURE AS SHARE OF TOTAL, BY TYPE OF SOCIAL
PROTECTION
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
24
55. Expenditure on social protection
as a share of GDP grew little during the
period (Figure 5). Depending on the year,
increases totaled 2.9–3.6% of GDP.
However, if expenditure related to social
insurance programs is subtracted,
expenditure on social protection
spending accounted for no more than
1.5% of GDP.
56. On average, Senegal outspends other African countries on social protection relative to GDP,
mainly as a result of high expenditure levels on social insurance (Figure 6). Expenditure on social
protection considered in this review consists of spending on social safety nets (including crisis response
programs) and social insurance and employment programs. Data for these types of expenditure are
generally incomplete. A review of those countries with sufficient data revealed that their governments
spent 1‒8% of their GDP on social protection, averaging at 2.75%. Allocating 3.4% of its GDP to social
protection, Senegal
spends somewhat more
than the average. This is
mainly due to Senegal’s
expenditure on social
insurance, which,
measured at 2.08% as a
share of GDP, is relatively
high compared with
other countries, which
spend on average 1.07%.
Only Mauritius spends
more relative to GDP
than Senegal. As for
expenditure on social
assistance, Senegal spent
less than the average
(1.62% of GDP), with
expenditure of just
1.14% of GDP.
FIGURE 5: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL PROTECTION AS SHARE OF
GDP
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
FIGURE 6: AVERAGE EXPENDITURE ON THREE TYPES OF SOCIAL PROTECTION AS SHARE OF GDP
BY COUNTRY
Source: World Bank (2017a)
25
57. Social protection expenditure was funded from three sources: the government’s budget, external
resources (from development partners – DP), and beneficiary contributions. Beneficiary contributions
include all contributions from employers and employees as well as the credit balance of all private sector
insurance providers. The share of expenditure funded through the contribution system fell slightly over
the period, from almost 37% to 32% of total expenditure on social protection. The share of expenditure
funded from external resources varied over the period (between 6.4% and 10.4%) but fell to its lowest
level in 2015 to 6.4% (Figure 7).
58. However, the share of funding from
beneficiary contributions and external
resources did not shrink because of lower
funding levels but rather as a result of an
overall increase in social protection
expenditure that was paid for by the
government. The low level of expenditure
funded from external resources can also be
explained in part by a number of difficulties
in data collection.17 Additionally, the review
focused specifically on programs managed
directly by the government.
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
59. It should be stressed that considerable funds are spent by international and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) on directly implementing actions that meet the government’s social protection
objectives. However, since the scope of these programs is too broad, this review did not include this
funding. For information, OCHA estimates that an average of USD 25 million (approximately CFAF 12
billion) was spent on humanitarian assistance in Senegal for the period under review (with estimates
ranging from USD 5 million to USD 40 million per year). Additionally, over CFAF 2.3 billion was spent by
NGOs under the National Food Insecurity Response Plan (PRNIA) in 2015 (Groupe sectoriel sécurité
alimentaire, 2015).
60. External resources were directed mainly at professional training programs, food insecurity response, and school feeding programs (Figure 8). External resources paid for 60‒100% of these programs’ total expenditure, making them highly funding-dependent. Meanwhile, the share of external resources directed at subsidy programs promoting access to healthcare and at nutrition programs fell during the period. This is explained mainly by additional government funding counterbalanced by a slight reduction in external resources.18 Programs with large budgets received little or no external resources.
17 Funding from development partners (DP) does not always appear in the annual reports of agencies and ministries
and is not included in SIGFIP. These funds are managed separately by the Investment Department of the Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Planning (MEFP).
18 It should be noted that data collected on external resources directed at the CMU were incomplete.
FIGURE 7: TOTAL SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE, BY FUNDING
SOURCE
26
This included cash transfer programs19 and student grants programs.
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
II – Rising Expenditure on Social Assistance Programs
61. Since 2013, expenditure on social assistance has accounted for 30% of total spending on social
services and for almost 1% of GDP. Total expenditure on social assistance programs rose sharply in 2013
and 2014. Although expenditure fell in 2015, it remained 38% higher than in 2010. Expenditure then
contracted in 2015 as a result of a sharp decline in expenditure on student grants (-32% compared with
2014 spending).
62. However, these figures should be qualified by the generous share of student grants as a
proportion of total expenditure. A review of expenditure by program type (Figure 9) reveals that three
program types accounted for the bulk of these expenditure, with the lion’s share allocated to student
grants, which accounted for more than half of all social assistance expenditure. Healthcare subsidies and
cash cash transfer programs each accounted for 20% of total expenditure on social assistance. The share
of healthcare subsidies and cash transfer programs expanded considerably during the period (Ministry of
Health, 2016a, 2016b). This matched the government’s new policy goal of implementing a national cash
transfer program (National Family Security Grants Program – PNBSF – and universal health coverage). The
remaining programs received only 5% of total expenditure on social assistance.
19 The PNBSF is supported by funding from the World Bank. However, since funding began only in October 2014,
total funding for 2015 was relatively low.
FIGURE 8: CHANGE IN EXTERNAL FUNDING AS SHARE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE, BY PROGRAM TYPE
27
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
63. Upon closer inspection, if expenditure on student grants is excluded, expenditure on social
assistance has only grown since 2013 and more than doubled since 2010. Expenditure on nutrition
programs and children’s social services have remained constant, while expenditure on cash transfer
programs and targeted subsidies to improve healthcare access rose sharply. In 2015, cash transfer
programs accounted for 37% of total social assistance expenditure (excluding student grants) compared
with 4.7% in 2010. Although expenditure on targeted subsidies aiming to improve healthcare access
increased during the period, its growth of total social assistance share of expenditure (excluding student
grants) was far less impressive, varying between 36% and 48% for the period. Meanwhile, total spending
on school feeding programs fell markedly during the period. This was related in part to lower World Food
Program (WFP) funding resulting from a transfer of all activities to the government. This transfer has not
yet been accompanied by any large increases in budget allocated to this program by the government.
FIGURE 9: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
28
Source: Author, compilation of collected data
64. Compared with other African countries, Senegal spends the most on student grants and targeted
healthcare subsidies relative to total social assistance expenditure (Figure 11). The data reveal that
countries generally spend the bulk of social assistance expenditure on two or three types of programs
only. Among all countries, the most common social assistance programs are school grants, targeted
subsidies, cash transfer programs, social pensions, and labor-intensive employment programs. Senegal
does not have a social pension program or a labor-intensive employment program in its social assistance
portfolio.
FIGURE 10: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, EXCLUDING STUDENT GRANTS
29
Source: Author, compilation of ASPIRE data based on most recent data available (data collected between 2010 and 2016)
65. Based on collected data, external
funding for social assistance expenditure
fell as a share of total funding (Figure 12).
This is explained in part by the
introduction of two major social assistance
programs: the insurance branch of the
CMU, and the PNBSF (both funded by the
government), and in part by a decrease in
external resources for the period.20
20 Note once again the limitations of data collection on external funding. For example, data on external financing for
the insurance branch of the CMU were incomplete and represented several billion CFAF.
FIGURE 11: EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS SHARE OF TOTAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE SPENDING IN AFRICA
FIGURE 12: TOTAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE BY FUNDING SOURCE
Source: Author, based on collected data
30
Expenditures on Subsidies Were Higher than Expenditures on Social Assistance Programs
66. It is interesting to note
that while there was an
increase in total social
assistance expenditure
(excluding university grants)
between 2011 and 2015,
expenditure on subsidies
shrank considerably. In this
review, subsidies include: 1)
subsidies directed at
consumers, such as subsidies to
agricultural inputs and
equipment, university student
services,21 fuel, and food; and 2)
subsidies directed at producers,
including liquefied petroleum
gas (Société Africaine de
Raffinage – SAR) and electricity
(SENELEC).
67. The drastic reduction in subsidies to SENELEC was not due to a change in policy but rather to
market changes, specifically the steep drop in the price of oil. Currently, 90% of SENELEC’s power is
generated from oil. Although Senegal is committed to pursuing reform to diversify its energy sources and
to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels by 2030, an increase in the price of oil in the coming years will
necessarily imply a large increase in subsidies. This could have a negative impact on the budget available
for social assistance programs.
68. Subsidies for agricultural inputs and equipment accounted for the major share of total subsidies
in 2015 and nearly equaled the amount spent on social assistance programs, excluding student grants.
These were the only subsidies whose value did not fall during the period.
III – Funding Sources and Expenditure on Crisis Response Programs
Most Spending on Crisis Response Programs Was Directed toward Drought and Rainfall Shortages
69. Total expenditure on crisis response programs varied between 4% and 8% of total expenditure on social protection for the period. Total spending was highly variable and depended on the severity of the crisis. Total expenditure in 2012 almost tripled in comparison with 2011 as 2012 was an especially difficult year.
21 University student services include subsides directed at universities to provide students with reasonable housing
near the university, balanced meals, and access to healthcare.
FIGURE 13: COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURE ON SUBSIDIES AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, EXCLUDING HIGHER EDUCATION GRANTS
Source: Author, compilation of collected data and International Monetary Fund (2012, 2016, 2017) data
31
70. Since 2013, food insecurity response programs22 have accounted for around three quarters of
spending on crisis response (Figure 14). Despite the fact that these programs accounted for the bulk of
total expenditure, the government allocated less than 15% of the total estimated cost to food insecurity
crisis response in 2015.23 It should also be noted that a large share of expenditure on food insecurity
response programs is covered by NGOs, which reported having transferred over CFAF 2.3 billion24 to food-
insecure households in 2015 alone (Groupe Sectoriel Sécurité Alimentaire Sénégal, 2016).
Source: Author, based on collected data
71. The response to agricultural production shocks appears to be very poorly funded. While shocks
to agricultural production were not quantified in this review, over the six years under review, agricultural
disaster funds received only an infusion from the government in 2013.
72. It was not possible to evaluate the extent to which expenditure on responding to other crises
(floods, fire, and others) covered needs since the number of people affected by these shocks was not
estimated. It is nevertheless possible to consider the reduction in flood risk (and therefore the
corresponding cost of damage and response) resulting from infrastructure-building policies that have
been in place since 2012 to improve storm runoff management and prevent flooding in Dakar.
African Risk Capacity: A New Funding Mechanism for Responding to Drought
73. Between 2010 and 2013, the finance bill included an expenditure line labeled Emergency Relief
Funds for the Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning (MEFP) and which was intended for
emergency responses and for activating the emergency services management plan (ORSEC). The amount
allocated to the Emergency Relief Funds varied between CFAF 1 billion and 5 billion. Funds were used only
in 2011. For other years, the supplementary finance bill reallocated these funds to other expenditure.
22 Spending related to actions aiming to save livestock was not included in this total. 23 The total cost of food aid was estimated at USD 32 million in 2015.
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/Senegal_SRP_2015.pdf 24 This figure is taken from the 2015 Group Sectoriel Sécurité Alimentaire Report. The transfers, which were funded
by the WFP, were deducted from the total amount since this expenditure was already accounted for in this review.
FIGURE 14: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON CRISIS RESPONSE PROGRAMS
32
Funds may be left unused as a result of lack of an emergency but also of lack of clear trigger mechanism
for releasing these funds.
74. Starting in 2014, this expenditure line no longer appears in the budget. However, the government
signed an agreement to become a member of the African Risk Capacity (ARC) initiative. In 2014, Japan
paid for Senegal’s insurance premium, at a cost of CFAF 1.8 billion.25 Following poor crop yields in 2014,
ARC indemnified Senegal for CFAF 9.556 billion. These funds were used as part of the national food
insecurity relief response and in operations designed to save livestock. Since 2015, Senegal’s finance bill
law has included an expenditure line for the payment of this insurance premium.
75. In addition to ARC, the MEFP has at its disposal limited resources with which to fund responses
to exceptional emergencies and disasters. These resources include:
- Food security stocks;
- A management reserve totaling 5% of the government’s budget but which is not specifically
earmarked for emergency and disaster response;
- Budgetary reallocation. The MEFP can cancel certain budget lines that have not yet been spent
and reallocate the funds to emergency and disaster response. However, this process is lengthy
and disruptive and requires approval from the President.
IV – Very Low Expenditure on Employment Programs
Total Expenditures on Employment Programs Varied Considerably during the Period but Were Uniformly Low, Accounting for 2%-7% of Total Social Protection Expenditure
76. The majority of employment programs had very small budgets. In 2015, only 6 of the 13 programs reviewed had total annual expenditure greater than or equal to CFAF 1 billion. Four of these programs had a credit balance. All the other programs had annual expenditure of CFAF 200–500 million per program on average.
25 USD 3.6 million.
33
77. Total expenditure increased markedly during the years in which a credit line was opened for use with entrepreneurship programs (for example, the PLASEPRI program in 2013) and for financing entrepreneurship in 2015. Total expenditure on programs designed to develop income-generating activities (IGA) among vulnerable groups varied over the period but never exceeded CFAF 2.5 billion per year. V. – Expenditure on Social Insurance Programs
78. Total expenditure
on social insurance
programs accounted for
over 60% of total social
protection spending for
the period. Expenditure
on the pensions system
accounted for nearly
90% of total expenditure
on social insurance
programs. This was
constant over the period.
Between 2010 and 2015,
expenditure on social
insurance programs increased by approximately 23% for the period. The FNR saw the largest increases
(+39%), while maternity leave expenditure saw the largest decrease (-20%).
FIGURE 25: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, IN
MILLIONS OF CFAF
Source: Author, based on collected data
FIGURE 16: EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL INSURANCE, IN MILLIONS OF CFAF
Source: Author, based on collected data
34
79. Expenditure on the pension
system alone absorbed 2% of
GDP. This amount was relatively
stable during the past five years, and
expenditure on private sector
pensions was nearly equivalent to
that for government employees.
Funding of the national pension fund
was indirectly subsidized by the
government through a hefty
contribution rate (23%) to the
system. Additionally, it is important to
note that for the period, neither FNR
nor IPRES received direct funding
from the government for pensions.
However, this situation, which is detailed in Chapter 5 , may change very soon.
FIGURE 17: EXPENDITURE ON PENSIONS AS SHARE OF GDP
Source: Author, based on collected data
35
Chapter 4 – Analysis of the Coverage of Social Benefits
I – A Life Cycle Approach to Social Protection Programs
80. Programs targeting only a few hundred beneficiaries have very low coverage and are not included
in this section. Preference was given to programs that reach a critical mass of beneficiaries. Only programs
operational in 2015 were considered. Subsidies for agriculture were included since they account for a
large proportion of social benefits.
81. The coverage of social protection programs is assessed through the life cycle approach. Table 10
categorizes the various programs by social protection objective and target group.
38
TABLE 10: SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS THROUGH THE LIFE CYCLE (Source: Author, collected data)
Social protection objectives
Pregnant women and children under 5
School-age children People of working age Elderly people
Social assistance
Free healthcare for children under 5
School feeding programs
University grants SESAME Plan
Free cesarean sections
Community nutrition program
Early childhood education centers Social services for university students
National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF)
Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC)
HIV/AIDS Program
Universal health coverage
Emergency programs
Disaster fund
National Food Insecurity Response Plan (WFP and FSC)
Flood fund
National Solidarity Fund (FSN) Agricultural insurance
Employment programs
Subsidies for inputs and farm equipment
PAPA Program
PRODES
ANPEJ
Support for entrepreneurs
PRODAC
Financing for young entrepreneurs
Program for women entrepreneurs
Social insurance Maternity leave Workers' compensation (accidents and
illness) National Retirement
Fund
Family benefits Family benefits IPM IPRES
II – Cross-Cutting Programs Have Highly Unequal Coverage
82. Some social assistance programs and nearly all programs for responding to shocks target
households or individuals on the basis of specific need. The three-main cross-cutting social assistance
programs are: (a) the National Family Security Grants (PNBSF); (b) the insurance arm of the CMU; and (c)
Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC).
83. The National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF) is unique in that it responds to a wide range
of needs. This program targets all households living in extreme poverty in Senegal (roughly 14% of the
population). The program’s target population is around 3.5 million. In 2015, the PNBSF nearly reached 2
million. It reached its final target at the end of 2016 with 300 000 households enrolled. It is now working
on addressing some of the inclusion and exclusion errors inherent to the targeting process.
84. As of 2015, coverage of the insurance arm of the CMU (subsidy for healthcare plan enrolment)
remained quite low at roughly 7% of the population (excluding children under 5 and people over 60).
However, this is due to the program starting only recently and to efforts being focused on creating
community-based healthcare plans, a process that needs to occur prior to enrolling new beneficiaries. In
December 2016, there were 671 healthcare plans throughout the country (or more than one per local
administrative area) and 2 355 783 beneficiaries of community based healthcare plans.
85. The coverage objectives of the Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC) remain well below identified
needs. Started only recently, this program targets all people with disabilities in Senegal. While coverage
remains low (with only 2,021 beneficiaries in 2015), the aim is to speed up enrolment to reach 50,000
people in 2017. However, this number still falls short of needs, accounting for only 21% of the entire
targeted population. In the 2013 general census, 230,000 individuals in Senegal, or 1.7% of the
population, reported suffering from a serious disability.
86. While multiple shock-response mechanisms exist, responses rarely achieve adequate coverage
in practice. Generally speaking, programs for responding to shocks and emergencies are assessed based
on the amount of material or food distributed rather than the number of people covered. This is the case
of the FSC, which only takes into account the number of tons of food distributed. Until recently, this was
also the case of the FSN. This makes it difficult to assess either the coverage of needs or the efficiency of
the response.
87. The National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) relies heavily on external actors to reach
beneficiaries. In 2015, the total number of individuals identified throughout the country as needing
support was 927,416. NGOs and development partners (DP) reached 263,645 people under the portion
of the PRNIA program for which they are responsible (Groupe Sectoriel Sécurité Alimentaire Sénégal,
2016). Data on the number of beneficiaries of the government response in 2015 are not available.
40
TABLE 11: COVERAGE OF CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAMS26
Age group / risk group Social protection
program Target group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total population 13,508,715
Total population aged 6–59)
CMU insurance branch 10,748,315 NA
792,985
7%
People living in extreme poverty PNBSF 1,958,764 NA
490,880 950,000 1,977,510
25% 48% 101%
People with HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS program 39,000
21,028 15,771 13,716 18,436
NA 54% 40% 35% 47%
People with serious disability CEC
235,965 – – – – – 2,021
0.86%
Number of people facing food insecurity
National Food Insecurity Response
Program (PRNIA)
927,416 (2015)
NA
Food Insecurity Response Plan (WFP)
54,574 39,085 142,000 300,881 257,690 85,855
NA 9%
People affected by floods Flood fund NA NA
People affected by shocks (all kinds)
National Solidarity Fund (NSF) NA NA 1,167 2,665
Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about programs
26 The target group column in Tables 13–16 is based as far as possible on data taken from the 2013 general census of the population (ANSD, 2013)
III III – Healthcare Coverage Is High among Children under 5 and Pregnant Women While Other Groups Are Neglected
88. The number of beneficiaries of healthcare programs for children under 5 has been increasing
steadily since 2013. Healthcare coverage is high among children under 5. According to the statistics
calculated based on the data collected, nearly 100% of children are covered. However, this figure does
not reflect the fact that some children receive four types of services (vaccination, consultation,
medication, and hospitalization) and are thus counted four times. The report on CMU performance in
2015 cited a coverage rate for children under 5 of 59%; however, the calculation method was not
specified. The community nutrition program also has very good coverage, with 74% of children under 5
receiving community nutrition services, and 68% of malnourished children received treatment under the
PRNIA.
89. The number of pregnant women with access to healthcare has been rising steadily since 2010,
which has lowered maternal mortality rates, even though the rate remains high (392 deaths per 100,000
births). The coverage of the program offering free cesarean sections has increased sharply in recent years,
reaching 80% in 2015.
90. Coverage of specialized services for children under 5 is very low. The community daycare program
was started in 2013 as a way to provide childcare services to working women on low incomes. The first
four community daycares opened in 2016. While this program meets a real need, its implementation has
been slow and its coverage remains very low despite receiving substantial resources. While the Early
Childhood Education (Case des Tout-Petits) program has been in operation since 2002 and its beneficiaries
have increased by 50% since 2010, its coverage remains low (roughly 15% of children aged 3–5) despite
substantial needs in the area of early childhood education.
91. Maternity leave coverage remains far too low. Maternity leave only targets employed women who
contribute to the Social Security Fund (CSS), which constitutes a very low percentage of the population.
Fewer than 3,500 women working in the private sector benefit from maternity leave coverage, while
women working in the informal sector receive no social protection during pregnancy.
42
TABLE 12: COVERAGE OF PROGRAMS TARGETING CHILDREN UNDER 5 AND PREGNANT WOMEN
Target
population Number of beneficiaries
Pregnant women 147,681 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pregnant women in the workforce Maternity leave 56,583
2,936 3,099 3,376 3,416
NA 5% 5% 6% 6%
Women needing a cesarean section Free cesareans 22,152
589
NA
6,705 12,066 17,961
3% 30% 54% 81%
Children under 5 1,992,857
Children under 5
Free healthcare
1,992,857
- - - - 1,269,059 2,016,765
64% 101%
PRNIA – community nutrition service
888,205 1,136,405 1,364,819 1,542,219 1,602,726 1,475,147
45% 57% 68% 77% 80% 74%
Children under 5 suffering from chronic malnourishment
PRNIA – treatment for chronic malnourishment
117,579 103,198 126,140 156,750 164,988 121,793 80,475
88% 107% 133% 140% 104% 68%
Children aged 3 to 6 Early Childhood Education
(Case des tout-petits)
996,429 103,575 110,865 113,155 132,734 140,678 144,760
10% 11% 11% 13% 14% 15%
Children aged 5–14 3,766,962
Primary and middle schoolchildren
School feeding programs (DCAs)
2,223,149
254,371 265,523 277,164 289,315 301,999 344,706
11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 16%
School feeding programs (WFP)
564,165 565,650 489,589 499,130 499,130 303,738
25% 25% 22% 22% 22% 14%
Children under 19 Family benefits 7,272,029
439,748 503,088 519,744 547,818 535,545
ND 6% 7% 7% 8% 7%
Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about programs
IV – With the Exception of Coverage Provided by Cross-Cutting Programs, the Coverage of Programs Targeting School-Age Children Is Low and Decreasing
92. Very few programs target children between 5 and 15 years of age. School-age children are the
group least targeted by large scale social protection programs as this population benefits only from food
assistance at school, healthcare insurance through their parents’ plans, and family benefits. While many
families receive family benefits, coverage is in fact low because only families with parents contributing to the
Social Security Fund (CSS) are eligible to receive them. While family benefits cover all children up to 21 years
of age in targeted households, fewer than 10% of all children in Senegal are covered by them.27
93. A limited amount of data was collected on the number of beneficiaries of assistance programs
aimed at vulnerable children. However, the low level of spending on such programs suggests that they
have very low coverage. Given the risks and the degree of vulnerability facing children in Senegal (see
Chapter 1), the shortage of benefits for this group is a major weakness in the government’s social
protection system.
94. The coverage of the school feeding programs is declining. The school feeding program is financed
and implemented jointly by the
government and external actors
(one being the WFP). However, the
number of beneficiaries covered by
the WFP has steadily declined since
2010 (Figure 18), while the number
of beneficiaries of government-
funded school feeding programs has
increased. The total number of
beneficiaries of the school feeding
programs program was 648,444 in
2015 (or 30% of children between
the ages of 5 and 15). This is one of
the only social assistance programs whose coverage dropped significantly during the period, probably due
to funding cuts.
FR EN
Cantines scolaires (Dcas) School feeding programs (DCAS, government funded)
Cantines scolaires (PAM) School feeding programs (WFP)
TABLE 13: COVERAGE OF PROGRAMS BENEFITING CHILDREN AGED 5–15 Number of beneficiaries
Age group/ risk group
Social protection program
Target group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Children between 5 and 14 3,766,962
Children enrolled in
School feeding programs (DCAS, 2,223,149
254,371 265,523 277,164 289,315 301,999 344,706
11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 16%
27 See Table 11 in Section II for the exact number of beneficiaries.
FIGURE 18: BENEFICIARIES OF THE SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAM
Source: Author, based on collected data
primary and
secondary school
government funded)
School feeding programs (WFP)
564,165 565,650 565,650 499,130 499,130 303,738
25% 25% 25% 22% 22% 14%
Children up to the age
of 19 Family benefits 7,272,029
439,748 503,088 519,744 519,744 547,818
ND 6% 7% 7% 7% 8%
ND: No data; Source: author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about programs
V – Numerous Programs Target People of Working Age, but Many Needs Remain Unmet
95. Numerous programs target people of working age (15–59). In assessing the extent to which these
programs meet the needs of this age group, it is important to distinguish them from programs targeting
students and young people in general, agricultural workers, formal sector workers, the unemployed, and
informal sector workers. These categories are not mutually exclusive. It is difficult to assess the coverage
of these programs since data are not available for some of them.
96. The only social assistance programs specifically designed for working age people benefit
students. Nearly all university students receive social support in the form of housing, food, and
healthcare. In addition, in 2014, over 70% of students received a grant.
97. Despite efforts to streamline and strengthen youth employment programs, improvements have
yet to be made in terms of the coverage of needs. Created in 2014, the National Agency for Youth
Employment (ANPEJ) launched several programs designed to improve youth employment. However, the
number of beneficiaries remains extremely low, with only 1,655 projects funded and 281 young people
receiving professional insertion support. Coverage is virtually nil since the total number of unemployed
young people is 840,000.28 While the agency was created recently, it did not materialize from scratch as
many agencies and funds for youth employment were established in the 2000s. Yet no program has
managed to achieve substantial coverage of the target population.
98. The coverage of programs for farmers is difficult to assess. For example, the coverage of the
disaster fund cannot be calculated precisely but appears to be low based on what data are available.
Several reports point to the lack of data on the number of beneficiaries of this fund, yet such data have
yet to be collected. The disaster fund has been used 7 times since 1998 in response to shocks (droughts
or floods affecting rice, grain, or peanut farmers, droughts affecting banana growers, etc.). While this fund
was set up to protect crop and livestock farmers alike, it has never been used for livestock farmers. Lastly,
the majority of CNCAS customers are commercial or semi-commercial farmers, with very few subsistence
farmers covered. As a result, the fund has hardly benefited the poorest farmers.
99. Despite the growing number of beneficiaries of the National Agricultural Insurance Fund of
Senegal (CNAAS), coverage remains modest. Created in 2009, CNAAS is the only institution in Senegal
offering agricultural insurance. Its membership has risen over the years. However, coverage remains too
28 Given that unemployed people account for 25.7% of the potential workforce and that nearly all unemployed
individuals (or 90%) are first-time job seekers, the number of young people in need of professional insertion amounts to 840,000.
low, with only about 3% of agricultural households being covered by insurance. In addition, 90% of CNAAS
customers are commercial farmers (with average farm size greater than 1 hectare), and subsistence
farmers are not covered (with the exception of those benefitting from the WFP’s R4 project).
100. People working in the formal sector benefit from social insurance programs, but the coverage of
some of these programs remains very limited. Since these individuals constitute the wealthiest group in
Senegal, it makes sense that they do not benefit from social assistance programs. However, with regard
to the Social Security Fund (CSS), only 1% of formal sector workers are covered by workers compensation
insurance. In addition, this proportion has declined steadily since 2010. This raises questions about the
handling of work-related accidents.
101. Employment programs for unemployed people or those living in extreme poverty do exist but
fall well short of needs. While programs such as economic grants have an ambitious objective (26,000
beneficiaries in three regions by 2017), they still have a long way to go. Substantial funds have been set
aside for microfinance, but data on how these funds have been used are unavailable. It is therefore
difficult to assess the coverage of these programs or how effectively they target the poorest populations.
TABLE 14: COVERAGE OF PROGRAMS TARGETING PEOPLE OF WORKING AGE
Target
population Number of beneficiaries
Working age population (15 to 59) 3,704,449 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of students University grants 143,939
62,000 78,000 80,000 85,000 103,278 107,632
NA 72% NA
Number of women aged 15-59 in
workforce Program for women
entrepreneurs 1,257,405 ND
Agricultural households
Subsidies for inputs and farm equipment
755,532
ND
Agricultural insurance fund ND
ND 1,511 2,257 9,751 13,559 19,690
0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 1.8% 2.6%
PRODAC ND
Unemployed population
PRODES
934,269
NA
1,023 1,094
0% 0%
Program to support entrepreneurs ND
Unemployed women
National fund for women entrepreneurs 514,237 ND
Unemployed youth Financing program for 844,513 NA 1,655
young entrepreneurs 0.2%
Youth insertion program NA
281
0.03%
Program for youth training and
professional insertion ND
Formal sector workers
Workers' compensation
(accidents and illness)
295,000 2,660 2,333 2,506 2,191 1,736
ND 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6%
Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about programs
46
45
VI – One Quarter of People over 60 (the Target Group) Receive Pension and Health Benefits
102. People over the age of 60 have access to two types of programs: retirement pensions, and
healthcare.
103. In 2014, 18% of the
population over the age of 60
received retirement benefits
from IPRES. IPRES paid the
pensions of 219,363 people in
2014. Of this group, 135,466
received retirement pensions and
83,897 received survivors’
pensions. Over the last decade,
survivors’ pensions have
accounted for roughly 40% of all
IPRES pensions. In terms of
coverage of the workforce,
around 4% of the population of working age (people aged 15–59) contributed to IPRES in 2014.
104. Coverage of the elderly population aligns with regional trends. While coverage of the elderly
population (in terms of the proportion of people past retirement age receiving pensions) might appear
low since only one fifth of the population over 60 is covered, this coverage aligns with regional trends. In
fact, considering only national pension systems, coverage in Senegal is at the upper end of the regional
spectrum.29
FIGURE 20: PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OVER 60 RECEIVING BENEFITS UNDER NATIONAL PENSION SYSTEMS
Source: Author, based on data about pension systems in Africa; World Bank
29 The national pension system encompasses pension systems that cover private sector employees and, in some
cases, government employees not covered under another system.
FIGURE 19: RECIPIENTS OF RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS’ PENSIONS
Source: Author, based on data collected
46
105. 5% of the population over the age of 60 receives FNR pensions. In 2014, around 1% of the working
age population contributed to the FNR pension scheme. It is important to emphasize this number given
FNR’s cost, which was roughly 1% of GDP in 2014. In the same year, IPRES expenditure amounted to 0.9%
of GDP and covered four times as many people over 60. Table 21 indicates the coverage and expenditures
of the two schemes.
106. Senegal has not
reached its goal of ensuring
that all people over the age
of 60 have health insurance.
Individuals in this age group
without medical coverage
under FNR or IPRES schemes
are eligible to receive
benefits under the SESAME
plan. SESAME covers
between 12% and 28% of the
population over the age of
60. Data are only available
for the years 2014 and 2015. In addition, as highlighted by the Universal Health Coverage Agency (ACMU),
in 2015, many people receiving healthcare benefits under pension schemes also use the SESAME plan,
which is perceived as more convenient. A better estimate of SESAME’s actual coverage cannot be
calculated by adding up pension system members as the benefits of pension scheme members are
different from those of non-members.
TABLE 15: COVERAGE OF PROGRAMS TARGETING PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 60
Target
population Number of beneficiaries
People over 60 767,543 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
People over 60
Recipients of FNR retirement benefits
767,543
26,461 28,444 30,382 32,178 34,134 35,969
3.4% 3.7% 4.0% 4.2% 4.4% 4.7%
Recipients of IPRES retirement benefits
119,096 128,360 132,672 129,055 135,466
ND 15.5% 16.7% 17.3% 16.8% 17.6%
People over 60 without pension
SESAME Plan
596,108
ND
215,000 94,161
36.1% 15.8%
PAPA ND
880 2,050 7,160 8,080
0.1% 0.3% 1.2% 1.4%
Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about the programs
FIGURE 21: FNR COVERAGE AND COST (% OF GDP)
Source: Author, based on data collected
47
Chapter 5 – Program Efficiency
I – Social Protection Programs Should Target Poor People as a Matter of Priority
Prevalence of Targeting by Category Compared to Poverty-Based Targeting
107. The social protection system primarily uses the category-based targeting method to identify
beneficiaries. The targeting methods used by the social protection programs that were active in 2015
were analyzed.30 This
included the following:
geographic targeting,
targeting by category
(demographic), targeting
based on income or level
of food insecurity, and a
combination of these
methods. Income-based
targeting includes a range
of methods including
community targeting,
income level, the proxy
means test, and
calculating food insecurity
scores. Approximately
45% of these programs
use a combination of at
least two targeting
methods. The most
frequently used targeting methodology is category-based targeting as 50% of programs use this
methodology alone, and 21% use a combination of geographic and category-based targeting. Only 24% of
programs use targeting to evaluate the income or food insecurity level of beneficiaries. Almost all shock
response programs use geographic targeting in order to prioritize the targeting of zones where the shock
occurred.
108. Only a quarter of social protection expenditure (excluding social insurance) targets the poorest
populations or those facing food insecurity. An analysis of the financial volume of the programs using
the various targeting methods used reveals that three main methods are used: (a) targeting by category;
(b) a geographic and category-based targeting combination; and (c) a geographic and income-based
targeting combination. The other methods are insignificant in terms of the volume of expenditure. About
three quarters of total expenditure by the programs under study target categories of persons (by itself or
combined with geographic targeting), and only a quarter target the poorest households or those facing
food insecurity.
30 Social security programs were not included as they are not targeted. All contributors to the system are
beneficiaries.
FIGURE 22: PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS, BY TARGETING METHOD
Source: Author, based on data collected
48
109. Exclusive use of the
category-based targeting
method is problematic
because not all households
with vulnerable members
are poor. Although the
poverty rate is higher among
vulnerable groups, it does not
exceed 50% of the targeted
group. For example, close to
half of Senegalese individuals
with a disability live below the
national poverty line
(Échevin, 2012). This is also
the case of elderly people or
children under five old.
Therefore, targeting all
persons with disabilities or all
the elderly means targeting a
group in which 50% of people
are not poor.
TABLE 16: BREAKDOWN OF VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS, BY POVERTY LEVEL Poor Not poor
Groups Age Number % Number %
Under five years old 0–4 1,077,973 50.8% 1,045,476 49.2%
School age 6–14 1,767,464 48.7% 1,859,220 51.3%
School age but has never attended school 751,437 55.3% 606,273 44.6%
School age but not enrolled in 2010/2011 54,590 45% 67,332 55%
Over 60 years old 61+ 332,773 44.2% 420,220 55.8%
Source: ESPS II
110. National programs that use geographic targeting cover the country evenly by poverty level, food
insecurity, or malnutrition in the zone in question. For example, the National Family Security Grants
Program (PNBSF) uses the results of the poverty map at the community level as well as population density
to set quotas of beneficiaries to be enrolled. Similarly, the National Food Security Response Program uses
data from the harmonized framework to target geographic areas to carry out interventions after
identifying the number of households to be targeted. Finally, the anti-malnutrition program uses the
findings of SMART and DHS studies. Determining the extent to which programs that do not use the
geographic targeting method allow the country to be covered in an equitable manner is more challenging.
FIGURE 23: PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE, BY TARGETING TYPE (2015)
Source: Author, based on data collected
49
Most Services Benefit the Richest Populations
111. Most services benefit the richest populations, not necessarily because of poor targeting but
because of the design of programs. Some programs are not aimed at combatting poverty but instead
strive to tackle claims from certain population categories, including students, farmers, persons over 60,
and so forth. Where this is the case, the use of the targeting by category method is not open to discussion.
However, these programs’ lack of relevance and equity within the social protection system raises
questions since a significant portion of total social protection expenditure is dedicated to these programs.
112. An analysis of the
beneficiaries of the costliest
programs shows that the majority of
services
benefit the wealthiest. For example,
ESPS II data show that 70% of
beneficiaries of higher education
grants fall within the two wealthiest
quintiles. This should be borne in
mind as this program costs
approximately 0.5% of GDP.
113. Similarly, over 60% of those
over 60 receiving a pension through the
National Retirement Fund (FNR) or the
Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal
(IPRES) belong to the two wealthiest
quintiles. However, only 30% of those
beneficiaries are women. Almost 2% of
GDP is spent for these programs, half of
which is directly financed by the state
(FNR). While these data are from 2011,
they are still relevant t given that there
has been no structural reform in the
distribution of higher education grants
or the retirement system.
FIGURE 24: BREAKDOWN OF STUDENTS RECEIVING UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS, BY WEALTH QUINTILE
Source: ESPS II, ANSD 2011
FIGURE 25: PENSION RECIPIENTS OVER 60, BY WEALTH QUINTILE
Source: ESPS II, ANSD 2011
50
114. In 2011, healthcare
beneficiaries belonged primarily to
the wealthiest quintile. However,
the trend could be reversed
depending on the success of the
CMU’s insurance arm. In 2011,
medical coverage was limited to the
active population in the richest
quintile and residing in Dakar, that is
to say most government employees and
those working in the formal sector. Other
elderly people (and those working in
agriculture) between 15 and 59
years of age had no insurance
healthcare coverage until 2014. Universal health coverage was set up at that time to allow for the
population without medical coverage to receive some protection. After two years of implementation, the
CMU’s insurance arm is said to cover 792,985 people. However, profile data for these beneficiaries are
not yet available. The CMU’s insurance arm, for which the priority target is households in the PNBSF,
should allow the medical coverage system to be extended to the poorest and alter the profile of the
population with access to healthcare coverage, which goes back to 2011. However, mutual healthcare
associations must function effectively and offer quality services if the system promoted by the CMU’s
insurance arm is to allow the populations to have medical coverage.
115. Similarly, the subsidy to farming inputs and equipment, which totals approximately 0.5% of GDP,
favors farmers who are not poor. According to the recently published study by the Agricultural and Rural
Forecasting Initiative on farm input subsidies in Senegal (IPAR, 2015), 59.7% of farmers who are not poor
received a subsidy as opposed to only 49.4% of poor farmers. The IPAR-led analysis shows that the first
quintile of the farmer population consumes about 22% of the subsidized inputs, while the fifth quintile
(or the richest farmers) consumes about 26% of subsidized inputs. The study also shows that subsidies on
seeds and fertilizer theoretically have the most distributive effects on the first and second quintiles as
opposed to equipment, which benefits the richest quintiles to a greater extent. Finally, the study notes
that many farmers complain about the fact that input distribution does not take farmers’ level of need
into consideration.
116. However, with the implementation of the PNBSF, the government has tried to rectify this
imbalance. An analysis of the findings of the PNBSF reference survey conducted in November 2016 on the
fourth-generation beneficiaries (Ferre, 2017) reveals that poverty rates observed within the PNBSF
beneficiary group are high (93%) and serve as testimony to the program’s successful targeting. The
proportion of households in extreme poverty is 58%, with substantial variation from one environment to
another: 24.8% of households in the PNBSF are extremely impoverished in Dakar, 54.8% in other cities,
and 80.4% in rural zones. Thus, the majority of households living on less than USD 1.90 per person per day
are found in a rural setting (61% of PNBSF households, while only 44% of PNBSF households live in a rural
area).
FIGURE 26: PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVE POPULATION WITH ACCESS TO A
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, BY WEALTH QUINTILE
Source: ESPS II, ANSD 2011
51
II – Matching Benefits to Relevant Objectives
Amounts Allocated to Recipients
117. The sums spent per beneficiary under the school feeding program are very low and cast doubt
on the quality of the service offered to students. First, expenditure per beneficiary under for the
Directorate of School feeding programs (DCAS) program fell by almost 50% over the period and by 15%
for beneficiaries of the WFP except in 2012 and 2013, when expenditure per beneficiary doubled. Second,
these amounts are not sufficient to provide one meal per day per child for the entire school year. In 2015,
the total spent per recipient per year was CFAF 2,419 for the DCAS program and CFAF 5,448 for the WTF
program. For the program managed by the DCAS, the amount allocated to schools is calculated as part of
the total school budget (16%) rather than in terms of needs or the cost of a meal per day per child. Given
such low amounts, it is likely that the number of beneficiaries has been overestimated or that school
feeding programs are not able to provide each child with one meal per school day.
TABLE 17: TOTAL SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAMMES EXPENDITURE, PER BENEFICIARY (IN CFAF MILLIONS) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
DCAS
Total expenditure 1,061,000,000 717,000,000 1,166,000,000 1,210,000,000 381,000,000 834,000,000
Number of beneficiaries
254,371 265,523 277,164 289,315 301,999 344,706
Expenditure per beneficiary per year
4,171 2,700 4,207 4,182 1,262 2,419
WTF
Total expenditure 3,512,328,500 2,744,805,000 6,670,841,500 7,927,525,500 2,633,216,500 1,654,764,000
Number of beneficiaries
564,165 565,650 489,589 488,130 499,130 303,738
Expenditure per beneficiaries per year
6,226 4,852 13,625 15,883 5,276 5,448
Source: Author, compilation of data collected
118. The same analysis could be conducted for numerous programs and will reveal the same
limitations. For example, the preschooler category includes infrastructure construction cost under total
expenditure while the annual amount spent per beneficiary (excluding managerial staff salaries) is around
CFAF 10,000, a seemingly small amount to cover the awakening and wellbeing needs of children in these
categories.
TABLE 18: TOTAL EXPENDITURE PER BENEFICIARY FROM PRESCHOOLER ITEM (IN CFAF MILLIONS) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total expenditure 1,200,000,000 1,050,000,000 848,000,000 1,150,000,000 1,100,000,000 1,605,000,000
Number of beneficiaries
103,575 110,865 113,155 132,734 140,678 144,760
Expenditure per beneficiary per year
11,586 9,471 7,494 8,664 7,819 11,087
Source: Author, compilation of data collected
119. From another perspective, the amounts allocated per beneficiary for shock response programs
are very high. The National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) allocates up to CFAF 45,000 per
household over three months. This is equivalent to 100% of the cost of a basket of food for a nine-person
household. Given that the Senegalese households benefitting from this program are not in an extreme
situation where they would have no resources from which to feed themselves, it is not unreasonable to
question this figure. Similarly, the National Solidarity Fund (FSN) may allocate up to CFAF 280,00031 per
31 This consists of a CFAF 100,000 transfer, an in-kind transfer equivalent to CFAF 80,000, and an additional CFAF
52
beneficiary household affected by a shock regardless of the household’s standard of living or the damage
incurred.
Sustainability of No-Charge or Insurance Healthcare Programs
120. The various no-charge or insurance programs are used inappropriately. First, excessive use of no-
charge services is made by individuals who do not belong to the targeted groups. Users take advantage of
how difficult it is to prove a child’s age because of the lack of a registry of births, deaths, and marriages or
to prove the lack of membership of the retirement system for people over 60. Additionally, excessive
prescriptions from healthcare professionals significantly inflate total healthcare costs because of the
failure to conform to the health pyramid and the failure of healthcare institutions to adhere to the billing
system (Dieng, 2016). Moreover, when medications are not available in healthcare centers, this causes some
households to register their children under five years of age with a mutual healthcare association so that
they can receive partial coverage for medications purchased in private pharmacies. These practices trigger
the financing of two subsidies for the same item: the free under-five service, and the subsidy for mutual
association membership.
121. The lack of a clear definition of the service package affected by free healthcare and by the CMU’s insurance arm poses a significant financial risk to the national budget as well as to mutual healthcare associations. Despite a 2009 ministerial decree excluding certain services from the SESAME plan, the
100,000 transfer should a household member die.
BOX 1: CHOOSING POLITICALLY APPROPRIATE PROGRAM PARAMETERS
Several types of programs can be implemented as social safety nets, and various parameters can be
included in their design. This includes public works, financial transfers with or without
conditionalities, support measures, program duration, and criteria for graduating from the program.
The decision to include these parameters is first and foremost a technical one aimed at the greatest
expected impact. However, political considerations often come into play if program ownership is to
be maximized. In fact, politics plays a significant role in program design.
Program parameters must take preferences, incentives, and perceptions into consideration. The best
designs are those that are technically solid, administratively feasible, and politically sound because
they increase ownership while maximizing impact. The technical and administrative feasibility
elements of programs are often addressed during their design, but the political aspect is often under-
estimated or reluctantly addressed (Pritchett, 2005).
At the extreme, a perfect technical design that ignores the social safety net support policy may well
be the worst option for those it serves. Political obstacles can be overcome in many ways. For
example, characteristics and parameters can be chosen in such a way that political preferences are
taken into account, and the targeting can be adapted so that it is compatible with given political
incentives. However, political adjustments should be introduced as a backstop and minimized and
mitigated by paying special attention to program inclusiveness and transparency in order to avoid
capture risks.
Source: Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa (World Bank, 2017a)
53
package of services offered under this program remains fluid and subject to extensive interpretation by individuals and medical personnel. At the end of 2013, the SESAME plan owed CFAF 4.7 billion to healthcare organizations. The service package underwritten by the CMU as currently defined is very broad and quite generous. It covers 80% of the cost of all services (from consultation to surgery) and 50% of medications purchased in private pharmacies, while the annual contribution is low (CFAF 7,000). For persons receiving family security grants, who for the time being constitute most members, the package of services covered by the CMU’s insurance arm covers 100% of costs, including healthcare and medications even when purchased at private pharmacies (Ministry of the family and Women’s Organizations, 2012. This system is subject to abuse.
122. The financial viability of the system of mutual healthcare associations is in doubt. Community
healthcare association systems can only work if the number of persons registered is much higher than the
number of users of the association. This is because the healthcare costs of some are financed only by the
membership fees of others. Senegal decided to not make its mutual healthcare association system
membership mandatory but rather to encourage membership through partial or total subsidies to costs.
The related financial risk to healthcare mutual associations is that they will not have enough members to
function. An Abt Associates study cited in a report by Dieng (2016) shows that while the registration rate
in the 78 mutual associations targeted by the study increased significantly between 2013 and 2015,
payment for healthcare is still low and has not changed over the period. Only 20% of mutual healthcare
associations in the sample under study are financially viable. Further, totally free healthcare and
medication for persons receiving a family security grant and significant healthcare use by such persons
constitute a very heavy financial burden for mutual healthcare associations.
Delays in the Distribution of Services in Kind or Money
123. After observing the recurrence of
shocks and their impact on their
population, a small majority of countries in
the region have begun to use their social
safety nets as a shock response mechanism.
The use of existing social safety nets allows
for a rapid response to shocks, thus
diminishing their impact on the most
vulnerable populations and reducing the
total cost of the response. However, Senegal
has not yet embarked on this path and is one
of approximately 20 countries (for which
data are available) that do not use social
safety nets as a response mechanism.
124. Inefficiency of in-kind distribution as a response to shocks. In-kind distribution is more costly than
cash transfers (Cunha, 2014; Margolies and Hoddinott, 2014), particularly because of the significant
logistical costs entailed. It is true that despite higher costs, certain contexts require in-kind distributions,
FIGURE 27: USE OF SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AS SHOCK RESPONSE MECHANISM
IN AFRICA
54
particularly when products are not available on local markets. However, because Senegal’s local markets
are supplied mainly with imported rice, this commodity (the main staple) is widely available in markets.
Further, recent impact assessments comparing in-kind distribution and cash transfers in 12 different
countries show that the impact on certain indicators varies according to the operational method. These
studies show that the impact of money transfers on food consumption is more significant than the impact
of distributing provisions. This also true of the food diversity index (Gentilini, 2014).
125. Rice distribution under food insecurity plans often reaches beneficiaries after the first weeks or
months of the beginning of the infertile period. For example, when the government obtained African
Risk Capacity (ARC) financing to address food insecurity in the country in 2015, cash flow problems
prevented governmental implementation actors from obtaining the funds needed to purchase and
distribute the rice in a timely manner. Some rice was distributed late (September 2015), and the
remainder was distributed as part of the 2016 response plan (ARC, 2015).
126. While 2015 saw improved consistency in PNBSF cash transfers, the process involved in getting
payments to beneficiaries in certain regions remains inadequate. Owing to the limited number of
representatives of the payment operator in some departments and the size of the territory to be covered,
beneficiaries are forced to travel long distances and to wait up to two days at the counter to be paid. A
new payment operator has been recruited in five departments, and mobile teams are now deployed in
each community. Although this mechanism does not resolve all the problems encountered by
beneficiaries, it is a vast improvement for those living in areas that are particularly to access, such as
Medina Yoro Fulla or Dagana.
55
PNBSF Cash Transfers Will Not Be Enough to Break the Intergenerational Cycle of Poverty
127. The PNBSF amount has an impact on reducing extreme poverty. The program transfers CFAF
25,000 to recipient households on a quarterly basis, or CFAF 100,000 per year for five years. This amount
amounts to 12–14.5% of the extreme poverty line for a six-child household in Dakar and in a rural zone,
respectively.32 This is within the average of the amount of money transfers in developing countries, which
is between 10 and 20% of household consumption before the transfer (World Bank, 2008). A recent
analysis of the distributive effects of Senegal’s budgetary policy (World Bank, 2016b) shows that the
allocated amounts have an impact on extreme poverty but that they are too small to have a significant
impact on poverty.33 This is not surprising and does not contradict the PNBSF objective of strengthening
the development of children’s human capital in order to halt the process of intergenerational poverty
transmission.
128. Yet the mechanism that aims to encourage PNBSF recipient households to invest in their
32 The extreme poverty line for a 6-child household with parents is CFAF 67,637 per month in Dakar and CFAF 57,742
per month in rural areas. The monetary poverty line for a household of the same size is CFAF 154,145 per month in Dakar and CFAF 92,171 per month in rural areas (ANSD, 2011)
33 80 % of the extremely poor and 100% of the moderately poor who receive family subsidies remain at the same level of poverty after the transfers (World Bank, 2016a).
BOX 2: IMPACT OF CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMS IN AFRICA
Nine African programs have documented their results for household consumption. Using the meta-
analysis approach, the impacts of seven programs are combined into a composite indicator of the effect
of social safety nets on household consumption. On average, household consumption increases by USD
0.74 per US dollar transferred. Most programs see an increase in household consumption. However,
there is considerable variation between countries. Among them, five programs lead to significant
increases. In Malawi, recipient households see an increase in consumption of 179 % of the value of
transfers. To an extent, this may be partially explained by the fact that most respondents lived outside
of the monetary economy prior to entering the program. The cash transfer program for children in
Zambia also shows very large positive effects on total consumption by consumption sub-categories,
with 76% of transfers used for food followed by healthcare and hygiene (7%), clothing (6%), and
communication and transportation (6%). These programs highlight the transformative potential of
social safety nets, which lead to increased consumption exceeding the total cash transfer received.
Three programs (the productive social safety net in Ethiopia, the cash transfer program for children in
Lesotho, and the Niger social safety net project) have shown a limited consumption increase associated
with the cash transfer from the social safety nets program. Overall, the impact as a portion of the
consumption of households before the intervention (reference study) is between 0% and 33%. It should
be noted that households do not typically spend all of their cash transfer on consumables, but are more
likely to allocate it to other areas such as productive investments, staggered expenses such as school
fees, or savings.
Source: Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa (World Bank, 2017a)
56
children’s human capital remains limited. Three years after the first cash transfer, awareness building
activities for behavior change in PNBSF households in education, births, deaths, marriages, and health had
not begun. This is partly due to the lack of an available budget. For the time being, all behavioral change
in households and communication support is financed by development partners (DP). Another
explanation is the challenge of inter-ministerial collaboration. Ministries providing social services do not
yet perceive the PNBSF as a sufficient opportunity for them to improve their own results and affect those
who are most excluded.
129. Although the PNBSF can stimulate demand for social services, these services must be available
and of good quality to be able to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Yet the quality of social
services remains poor. For example, the findings of the most recent Program for the Analysis of the
Educational Systems of CONFEMEN Countries (PASEC, 2015) reveal that 40% of children cannot read at
the end of elementary school. In addition, healthcare entities lack personnel. The analysis of health
personnel coverage (ANSD, 2016) revealed in 2013 that Senegal had one doctor per 12,373 persons, one
nurse per 4,320 persons, and one midwife per 2,426 women of reproductive age. Further, coverage of the
population by healthcare personnel varies enormously between regions, to the detriment of the poorest
regions (ANSD, 2016).
III – Lack of Financial Viability of the Retirement System
Doubts Surrounding IPRES Financial Viability
130. While the IPRES system is financed in a context where contributions from current workers are
used to pay the pensions of current retirees, the system has a surplus that generates investment
income. In 2014, investment income represented approximately 11%34 of contribution income. A more
detailed analysis of the amount of assets and of their utilization rate over the past decade could help
explain the financial performance of the IPRES system and anticipate its future financial needs. It is not
generally unreasonable to spend 0.9% of GDP on approximately 20% of the elderly population. However,
more information is needed on the level of benefits, expenditure by category of retirement, and sources
of financing for a more thorough evaluation of the fiscal position of the system and the equity of its
benefits.
131. The Audit Office pointed the finger at several aspects of IPRES financial management of inflows
and investments and of its technical management, which is a possible indication of poor risk management by
the institution (Cour des Comptes, 2014). The Audit Office specifically underscored the following: (a) a gap
in inflow of contributions; issues with the management of inflows; (b) non-lucrative equity participation;
(c) ineffective management of income properties; (d) a lack of planning in terms of property investment;
(e) failure to optimize the recovery of contributions; (f) poor control activity; (g) failure to incorporate
years of unpaid contributions into the pension equation; (h) prolonged pension settlement waiting times;
and (i) pension fraud, all of which were underscored at the technical level. Without major reform of IPRES
financial and technical management, these issues are harbingers of a gradual decline in the system
financial position.
34 The value of accumulated IPRES assets is unknown.
57
132. IPRES has an 80%
dependency ratio, which means
that it has 295,000 contributors,
or 3.8% of the working age
population, and 219,363
pension recipients. This raises
critical questions about the
sustainability of the retirement
system even if this rate is
trending downward for pensions
at the current replacement rate
with no additional sources of
revenue. This may also be an
indication that the system is
coming to maturity, when the
number of elderly people exceeds (or is close to) the number of contributors. Greater coverage of elderly
people could also indicate that the system has undergone a contraction in coverage, that is to say that
preceding generations acquired rights to retirement that were higher than the current working age
population. The dependency ratio could also be explained by the fact that a former contributor acquired
rights to a pension that were transferred to his or her survivors over a very long period. However, more
data are needed to be able to draw conclusions on the fiscal sustainability of the IPRES system.
133. Finally, Senegal will face significant demographic aging in the decades to come. By mid-century,
the number of over 60-year-olds is set to double in proportion to the total population. Currently, the
population aged over 60 represents 4% of the total population. However, it is predicted that by the
middle of the century, this figure will reach 9% of the total population. The doubling of the elderly
population as part of the total population does not necessarily mean that there will be a doubling of the
population covered and therefore an increase in retirement spending, but there may be serious
repercussions for the retirement system and the wellbeing of the elderly.
Source: UN demographic projections
FIGURE 28: IPRES DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Source: Author, based on collected data
FIGURE 29: POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY AGE GROUP AND PROJECTION
58
The FNR is Not Sustainable
134. The FNR’s 2014 expenditure was 1% of GDP and significantly increased between 2010 and 2014
despite only minimal change in the total number of beneficiaries. The two most important points to be
highlighted are: (1) the relatively high cost of the absolute number of persons benefitting from retirement
funds; and (2) the relatively high portion of public inflows going to the retirement system when compared
to other sectors such as health and education.
135. A very generous formula is used to calculate FNR retirement amounts. In fact, when the amount
spent per beneficiary is analyzed, the average monthly pension35 stands at double per capita GDP and
about 80% of the insured person's salary. The average monthly pension benefit from the FNR is more than
three times the average pension paid by IPRES.36
136. The state’s employer contribution is very costly. In the case of the public sector retirement system
(FNR), as the employer is the government, the employer's portion of the retirement contribution rate
(23%) is a direct cost to the government. Even if the retirement system were in budgetary balance, with
adequate contribution inflows covering retirement expenditure, the relatively high employer contribution
rate may be considered problematic from both a budgetary and ethical standpoint. Senegal’s retirement
contribution rate for the public sector is the highest in the region (Figure 30).
35 Calculated by dividing retirement expenditure by the total number of beneficiaries. 36 Calculated based on total retirement expenditure divided by the total number of beneficiaries.
FIGURE 30: RATE OF CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC SECTOR RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
59
Source: Author, based on retirement systems data, World Bank
137. The National Retirement Fund (FNR) is in deficit and will have to be directly financed from the
national budget in the near future if no reform takes place. According to an FNR actuarial study (Ndiaye
and Diabate, 2012), various reforms were adopted in 2002 following a large deficit at the beginning of the
2000s, leading to an increase in the retirement age, a reduction of the annuity rate, and taking the last
three years of salary into account in calculating pensions. These reforms allowed cash deficits to be
reabsorbed, with surpluses appearing within the first year of their implementation. However, the surplus
funds did not last long as a deficit already existed in 2011. The 2014 public report of the Audit Office
illustrated the problem. In 2013, the FNR collected CFAF 64.5 billion in inflows but spent CFAF 68.6 billion
on pension payments. While it still had a positive balance left over from the reforms at the beginning of
the millennium, its credit balance fell to 14% in 2013, or from CFAF 29.4 billion to CFAF 25.1 billion.
60
Chapter 6 – Effectiveness of the Social Welfare System I – The RNU: A Tool with High Potential
Recent Efforts to Improve Targeting
138. Based on the
interviews conducted,
poverty does not appear to
be a decisive criterion in
designing assistance and
empowerment programs.
Such programs largely use
the language of vulnerability
in their targeting criteria. A
great number of them
associate the adjective
“vulnerable” with a category,
such as “vulnerable women,”
“vulnerable young people,”
vulnerable children,” etc. In
practice, every program
measures vulnerability
differently. In some cases, a
social survey is carried out to
verify vulnerability. However,
when vulnerability is the sole
criterion, there is no
prioritization of support
based on degree of
vulnerability, and this is in a
context where the majority
of the population is poor and
resources are limited. In such
a case, benefits are allocated
on a “first come, first served”
basis. Given that very often,
the most vulnerable people
are those with the least
access to information, aid is
unlikely to reach those most
excluded.
139. However, this has been
changing since 2014, the year Senegal set out to construct a Single National Register (RNU). The goal of
BOX 3: HOW BRAZIL, COLOMBIA, PAKISTAN, AND SENEGAL CREATED A SOCIAL
REGISTER FOR BETTER EFFICIENCY AND GREATER IMPACT Many countries use social registers to coordinate the identification, recording, and assessment of household eligibility. These registers enable programs to be more efficient through improved targeting, reduce the cost of such targeting, and encourage coordination, which permits households to be supported comprehensively. These registers were initially launched in Brazil and Colombia, where they form the core of the social welfare system. They are used by many programs that target poor households in terms of health, education, water, electricity, social nets, transportation, etc. In all, over 30 programs use Brazil’s Cadastro Único and Colombia’s SISBEN. Many countries around the world have now adopted social registers. In Africa, Ghana's National Register serves to identify the beneficiaries of LEAP (a cash transfer program) as well as destitute households under the National Health Insurance System. Similarly, in Senegal, the Single National Register (RNU) is used by the National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF), the Universal Health Coverage Program (CMU), and certain productive programs. TABLE 1: EXAMPLES OF REGISTERS AROUND THE WORLD
Country Name of register Number of households
(% of population)
Number of programs using
the register
Brazil Cadastro Único 27.2 million (40%) 30+
Chile Social Register of Households
12.3 million (70%) 65+
Colombia SISBEN 10.4 million (73%) 31
Georgia TSA Register 1.2 million (36%) 16
Pakistan National Socio-Economic Register (NSER)
27 million (90%) 30
Philippines Listahanan 15.3 million (77%) 52
Senegal Registre National Unique (RNU)
450,000 (30%) 3
Source: Social Registries for Social Assistance and Beyond. Working paper. World Bank (2017b)
61
the register is to target the 450,000 poorest households in the country, or about 30% of the total
population. As the rate of extreme poverty is around 14.5%, the RNU should be able to identify all of this
population despite potential inclusion errors.
TABLE 19: RNU POPULATION AND PERCENTAGE IN POVERTY
Percentage of the total population Estimated number
Individuals in extreme poverty 14.5% 2,012,643
Poor individuals 46.7% 6,482,098
Households in RNU 28% 450,000 Estimated number of individuals in RNU (on the basis of 10 persons per household) 32% 4,500,000
Source: Author, based on ESPS II (ANSD, 2011), and collected data
140. By the end of 2016, 450,000 households had been registered in the RNU. The purpose of this
targeting tool is to: 1) enable various social programs to select their beneficiaries quickly by conducting a
simple analysis of the database; ii) reduce the costs associated with targeting and selecting the
beneficiaries of the various social programs; and iii) enable social programs to be implemented quickly.
The PNBSF uses the RNU to target its beneficiaries.
141. However, if the RNU is to fulfill its objectives, the identification of the poorest households will
have to improve over time in order to minimize exclusion or inclusion errors. A study (Sadoulet and
Adrianarimana, 2014) conducted in four municipalities revealed that community targeting, the first step
in the RNU targeting process, was not very effective in identifying the poorest households in these
communities. In fact, the study showed that the households pre-identified by each community were not
significantly poorer than those not pre-identified. Moreover, the RNU should quickly put in place an
efficient process for updating its data along with an effective mechanism for processing claims if it is to
be useful in implementing social programs.
Efficiency Improvements in the Social Welfare System Will Invariably Come with Increasing Use of the RNU
142. Having gone through rapid development, the RNU remains in an institutionally and financially
precarious position. The register is highly dependent on external financing to conduct its campaigns
aimed at identifying the poorest households. It does not have its own budget line, and no decree has as
yet endorsed its existence. The cost of targeting a household for RNU purposes varies between CFAF 3,500
and 4,000 (not counting salaries or the department's running costs). Given the per-household cost of
targeting, the RNU could be an effective mechanism for targeting social welfare programs provided it is
used by a majority of them.
143. The underutilization of the RNU by government players holds back efficiency improvements in
the social welfare implementation mechanism. Only a few social welfare programs managed by the
government have started using the RNU, including the PNBSF, the insurance arm of the CMU, and PRODES.
There are three main reasons for this. First, the RNU is a recent tool that remains under construction and
is relatively unknown by sectoral players. Second, the RNU data and household identification process still
62
need to be improved. Last, institutional infighting and the dynamics of power limit cooperation between
players and harmonization of the methods and tools used by the system. Systematic use of the RNU
should permit increased synergies between programs and offer an integrated service package to the
poorest people.
144. Use of the RNU to target the
beneficiaries of the higher-education
grants program or subsidies for
agricultural inputs or machinery
would limit the unfairness of the
system. With the RNU as the basis,
benefits under such programs could
be allocated transparently to the
poorest and thereby boost the impact
of those programs instead of
targeting the wealthiest, as is
currently the case.
145. In addition, using the RNU to
target food insecurity response
programs would achieve substantial
savings that could be redistributed
to beneficiaries. In 2014, the
government spent CFAF 600 million
on targeting the food insecurity
response program and CFAF 100
million in 2015. At the same time,
NGOs also targeted their
beneficiaries and spent several
million CFA francs in doing so. A
number of studies are underway to
determine the extent to which the
programs targeting food insecurity
could use the RNU as a targeting tool.
146. The RNU constitutes an opportunity for low-budget social welfare programs to reach the poorest
and most excluded populations. As we saw earlier, many programs have limited budgets and opt for the
least expensive targeting method (category-based and "first come, first served") to allocate the maximum
possible resources to the benefits on offer. The RNU can enable these programs to ease this targeting
shortfall and allocate their resources to the neediest by making available a database of the poorest
individuals and households.
II – A Complex Institutional Mechanism
TABLE 20: FILTERS THAT COULD BE USED IN THE RNU
Source: Author, based on collected data
Program Potential filters
Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA)
HEA scoring
Subsidies for Agricultural Inputs and Machinery
Agricultural households living in poverty
PRODAC Young people from households living in poverty in a rural area
PAPA People over 60 belonging to a household living in poverty
Program to Combat Vulnerable Children
Poor households with at-risk children
Support for Wards of the State
Orphaned children living in a poor household
Medical Care Program for the destitute
Persons living in a poor household
SESAME Plan People over 60 belonging to a poor household
School Cafeterias Schoolchildren living in a poor household
Agricultural Disaster Fund Poor households living from agriculture who suffered a shock
National Solidarity Fund (FSN) Poor households who suffered a shock
Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC)
Person with a disability living in a poor household
Childhood Deprivation Program
Poor households with children under 12
63
Difficult Sector Coordination
147. The government of Senegal has been engaged in the construction of a national social safety nets
system since 2013. It is one of some 20 African countries that have embarked on this path or that already
have a national safety nets system. A similar
number of countries, for which data are
unavailable, have no strategy for developing
a national social safety nets system (Figure
31). Such a system includes: (i) a common
mechanism that enables each program to
target and record its beneficiaries; (ii) an
institutional platform that serves as a
coordinating device at central, regional, and
local level; and (iii) a set of interventions that
enable appropriate coverage of needs. As we
saw in earlier sections, Senegal has made
great advances in putting in place a common
targeting mechanism and implementing
programs with wide coverage. However,
progress in sectoral coordination is less evident.
148. Coordination efforts are focused on the sector as a whole and not specifically on safety nets. It
becomes all the more complex, as can be seen in Senegal's social welfare sector, when multiple players
are involved in its implementation. We saw earlier that there are so many programs that they are difficult
to capture exhaustively. At the same time, the institutional structure of the implementation of these
programs is complex. The programs in progress in 2015 are implemented by at least 9 oversight ministries
and 12 agencies. Additionally, the institutions in charge of social welfare programs regularly suffer a
degree of institutional instability. For example, the FSC and FSN came under the Ministry of Family
Services until 2012 and the SESAME Plan under the General Directorate of Social Action (DGAS) until 2014.
This setup does not always meet the demands of efficiency: for example, at least three institutions (DGAS,
CMU, FSN) are tasked with providing healthcare for the destitute. Similarly, at least three institutions are
tasked with helping highly vulnerable groups to develop income-generating activities (IGA): DGAS, the
Poverty Monitoring Committee, and the Women's Entrepreneurship Fund.
149. A sector coordination mechanism was set up in 2013 but seems ill-equipped to manage this
multi-sectorality. An interministerial steering committee for the National Social Protection Strategy
(SNPS) and a technical support committee were created by decree. These committees are tasked with
ensuring better coordination of social welfare interventions. They are chaired by the DGPSN and the
Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning (MEFP). Much effort has gone into energizing these
committees and improving sectoral coordination. However, the results of the coordination remain
limited. The multiplicity of players makes coordination particularly difficult. The DGPSN, which reports to
the President's Office, and the MEFP, which reports to the Prime Minister's Office, do not have direct
FIGURE 31: CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL NET SYSTEMS IN AFRICA
64
hierarchical links to all the sectoral ministries, which tends to limit their capacity for leadership. As a result,
the steering committee finds it difficult to attract the attention of the directors and ministers of the
institutions concerned, and their discussions differ little from those held in the technical committees.
150. A mechanism for monitoring the social welfare sector is being developed, but it has not yet led
to improvements in the management of that sector. An annual multisectoral review of the social welfare
sector has been produced every year since 2014, led by the DGSPN (2016). At the same time, a sector
monitoring framework has been developed to monitor key indicators. These two projects tackle some
major obstacles to fully achieving their objectives. First, the sectoral review has not yet succeeded in
collecting exhaustive financial data about the programs in the sector for several reasons: (i) data are not
available; (ii) data are not saved; and (iii) social welfare sector spending is not identified in dedicated
accounting lines (or is any other sector) in the Finance Bill. Second, establishing a monitoring framework
proved to be a complicated process, illustrating the fact that sector limits are unclear and that program
monitoring systems are not effective.
151. The progress achieved in setting up a national social safety nets system in recent years is not
anchored in law. Despite heavy investment and the progress achieved in implementing a national social
nets system, the status of the various programs (CMU, PNBSF, RNU) remain somewhat precarious due to
lack of legal anchoring and limited institutionalization.
BOX 4: INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND ANCHORING IN LAW
In Africa, most programs are relatively new, and there are few cases of changes in institutional arrangements. Where social nets have existed for a longer period of time, a greater number of cases of changes in the institutional arrangements of those programs can be seen. In Colombia, the Familias en Acción conditional cash transfer program was launched in the late 1990s, initially for three years. As an emergency measure, it was operated by an agency reporting to the President's Office. As the crisis eased, the program was refocused more broadly on promoting human capital. Although the initial arrangements allowed fast implementation under less-restrictive operating rules, that characteristic led to the program becoming isolated from other social institutions. Thus, for the program to develop further, it required new institutional arrangements. A ministry was therefore created in 2011 to oversee this program (among others), which covers over 2.5 million households, or about a quarter of the population, and is now firmly anchored in national legislation.
It is important that safety nets programs be thus anchored in national legislation. This puts limits on political interference and entitles individuals to access social transfers. Without a supportive legal framework, programs can be more easily shut down, shrunk, or expanded to suit political exigencies and opportunism.
The legal anchoring of social safety nets programs tends to develop to reflect growth in their safety net programs. As the programs expand and achieve national coverage, they require more robust support and attract more political attention. As the government increases funding, programs tend to become more formal, and a need for more-responsible management emerges. As legal anchoring can be an early sign of major funding by government or donors and can be necessary to sustain sound institutional arrangements, it constitutes an essential factor when building sustainable programs with nationwide coverage. However, laws are effective only if they are realistic and enforceable and do not create impossible hurdles. Defining statutory rights without specific provisions or without taking into account possible subsequent adjustments can compromise the ability to implement social safety net programs or enact them in the future.
Source: Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa (World Bank, 2017b)
65
The Role of Local Authorities in Social Welfare 152. Section II of the decentralization reform (Law No. 96-06) transferred jurisdiction over social welfare to local authorities without clearly specifying their scope. Regional councils were tasked with "promoting economic, social, and public health development" (Article 25). Municipalities were required to "ensure the best standard of living for the entire population" (Article 88) and could decide on issues involving "educational support, free medical assistance, and assistance to seniors, the destitute, and victims" (Article 157). Lastly, rural communities had jurisdiction over "human capital investment projects" (Article 195).
153. Section III of the decentralization reform (Law No. 2013-10) has an entire chapter devoted to
public health, population, social action, and education and specifies in detail the scope of the powers
transferred to local authorities over social action and assistance to vulnerable persons. Some of those
powers relate to social welfare issues and are listed here in detail (Table 21). For example, local authorities
at every level must:
- Contribute to the CMU;
- Provide study grants; and
- Support occupational training (with the exception of municipalities)
Additionally, each department has special powers to help fund productive projects involving poor
populations, while municipalities are tasked with organizing and managing support for the needy.
TABLE 21: DESCRIPTION OF POWERS TRANSFERRED IN SOCIAL SECTORS
Department Municipality Local Authority
Public health and social action
Article 306 Article 306 Article 170
Each department is granted power to […]:
• Participate in the universal health coverage program (CMU);
• Participate in the maintenance and management of social encouragement and reintegration centers;
• Help fund productive projects for deprived populations.
Each municipality is granted power to […]:
• Organize and manage support for the needy;
• Participate in the universal health coverage program (CMU).
Each local authority is granted power to […]:
• Participate in the universal health coverage program (CMU;
• Allocate and distribute study grants and school aid.
66
Promote education, literacy, knowledge of national languages, and occupational training
Article 312 Article 313
Each department is granted power to […]:
• Support occupational training;
• Allocate study grants and school aid.
Each municipality is granted power to […]:
• Allocate and distribute study grants and school aid;
• Support occupational training.
Source: Author, based on Section III of the decentralization reform
154. In practice, few social welfare powers were transferred to local authorities. Most of the
transferred powers consisted of participation in central government initiatives. For example, local
authorities are expected to help fund the CMU as well as productive projects through which they offer
occupational training. However, coordination between local authority and central government support
for the CMU is not clearly explained. Is local authority financial support for the CMU paid directly to the
Agency of the CMU? Or is it used locally to pay community insurance premiums directly? The same applies
to aid for the destitute (medical expenses, food), for which there is no mechanism to ensure local-central
coordination.
155. Local authorities seem to have exclusive powers in two areas, even though these powers remain
theoretical because the local authorities lack the resources to exercise them. First, they are granted the
power to allocate study grants and school aid as the central government does little in this regard and lacks
the budget to provide elementary or secondary school grants. Second, they have the power to organize
and manage support for the needy. This power is very broad and could cover many social assistance
actions and responses to shocks. It is also the only power that could conflict with national welfare
programs. Every year, a ministerial decree distributes decentralization funding to local authorities for
resources needed to exercise their transferred powers. On that basis, local authorities decide how to split
that amount to service the powers they have been transferred, which is then added to the original budget
(which they must meet from their own resources). The 2015 Finance Bill increased the resources allocated
to local authorities by 14% but did not cover the additional spending for the newly created entities or the
newly transferred powers (World Bank, 2015c). As a result, local authorities find themselves in a position
where they have powers without adequate financial resources to exercise them.
156. Although the amounts allocated to social welfare activities are small, they are always budgeted.
The budget is often earmarked for support for the destitute (mainly during religious festivals) and
healthcare. In a city such as Pikine,37 out of an annual budget of CFAF 6.9 billion in 2016, CFAF 360 million
was earmarked for social welfare activities, or 5.2% of the city's budget. This amount was earmarked for
the distribution of cash and food during religious festivals, student grants, and microprojects. The social
37 Considered as the second wealthiest city in terms of its own resources, and the most densely populated, its
finances are not representative of those of other local governments
67
welfare budget for the city of Pikine is funded primarily from its own resources, but this is unusual and is
due to the fact that Pikine is one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country.
TABLE 22: SOCIAL WELFARE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PIKINE (IN CFAF MILLIONS)
Social welfare activities
Own resources
Grants
Participation in CMU 30 5
Support for the destitute (cash and food transfers during religious festivals)
150
Welfare payments 40
Study grants 80
Funding for productive projects for deprived populations 55
Total Social Welfare 360
Total budget 6,900
Social welfare as percentage of total budget 5.2%
Source: Author, based on collected data
157. Although no assessments have been undertaken of social welfare programs implemented by
local authorities, it is unlikely that their support programs target the poorest and most vulnerable. All
aid is distributed based on requests received and the resources or budget available. Destitution and
poverty levels are not assessed as neither the cities nor the local authorities have the tools or resources
to do so. The first applicants from the target group (students, seniors, etc.) to send in their letters with a
copy of their national identity card are the first to be served. They are those ones with the best networks
and the best access to information and thus have the best chance of benefiting from state aid.
158. The RNU could be a very useful tool for local authorities to increase the effectiveness of their
social welfare actions and to improve coordination between central and remote facilities. The RNU
relies largely on targeting by communities at district and village level coordinated by the municipality.
Local authorities should therefore not hold back from using the RNU. However, many people still do not
understand the purpose of the RNU or how it works. For local authorities, the RNU is an opportunity to
coordinate programs run by local authorities, the government, or NGOs at local level and to combine
efforts to help the poorest.
III – Inefficient Financial Management of the Social Welfare System
Lack of Sector Overview When Budgeting
159. Senegal's social welfare strategy offers only vague budgetary guidelines for implementing that
strategy. The new national Social Welfare Framework Strategy (SNPS) has set a goal of securing non-
contributory and semi-contributory funding for programs amounting to 7% of the national budget,
knowing that between 2013 and 2015, total spending on social welfare, excluding social insurance, was
4.5–5% of the total national budget. A rough estimate of the cost of the main programs is included in the
SNPS while awaiting a more in-depth estimate to be carried out.
160. Rough estimates of the cost of key programs do not suffice to support the implementation of
68
the strategy. The estimate of the financial cost of the new SNPS programs assigns as many financial
resources to people with disabilities (11%) as it does to children (12%) and seniors (12%). This brings into
question of the purpose of the arrangements as well as their distribution. In practice, the same resources
are allocated to 1.7% of the population (people with disabilities), 27% (children under 15), and 5.5%
(seniors). Furthermore, financial estimate focuses on a few key programs that are not always consistent
with the rest of the strategy, which makes it difficult to prioritize programs within each objective when
they are being implemented. For example, the primary strategic objective that focuses on children is one
of key programs for this objective and mentions programs aiming to counter begging by children, child
labor, and children in conflict with the law. However, they do not appear in the list of key programs in the
financial estimates section of the SNPS.
161. Without clear financial guidelines in the SNPS and the existing institutional mechanism, budget
negotiations and the financial prioritization of social welfare programs cannot take place in a holistic
and strategic manner. There is no specific budget dedicated to social welfare. All public social welfare
interventions are budgeted separately in each sectoral ministry to which they relate. Budget planning in
the social welfare sector is not conducted in a coordinated manner. The DGPSN has no role in this process.
The credits allocated for each program are decided by the sponsoring ministry in negotiations in the
Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning (MEFP). The budget planning process gives negative
incentives to its own ministry to try and secure the largest budget for its program rather than promote
other social welfare sector priorities as well as complementarity between the programs.
162. The budget planning process discourages better use of available resources to achieve the desired
results. The national budget is split into the budget related to externally financed spending and that for
spending financed exclusively from internal resources. These two budgets are prepared, managed, and
monitored by different units in the MEFP and supported by different data systems that do not
communicate with each other. In addition, the present system does not encourage results-based
planning, although that is gradually changing with the introduction of a multi-year budget planning
(MYBP)38 document. Until its introduction, spending in any given year would not normally be renewed the
following year. Budget planning was not based on desired results or on coverage objectives. As the MYBP
document does not provide for social welfare but for each oversight ministry, it risks not resolving the
sector planning problem.
Program Execution in Difficulty
163. An analysis of change in the amounts allocated between the Initial Finance Bill (LFI) and the
Amending Finance Bill (LFR) shows the inability of some programs to know at the start of the fiscal year
what financial resources are available to them. Out of the total amount budgeted for 10 social welfare
programs, we see average change of 59% between the LFI and the LFR over the 6 years covered. However,
it should be noted that none of the changes is negative as the budgets for social welfare programs were
not reduced during any year. However, this positive change also means that some programs were not
priorities at the time of the LFI.
38 The Document de Programmation Pluriannuelle des Dépenses (DPPD) ( multi annual spending plan) was introduced
after a public finance reform initiated in 2009 by the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). Its objective is to mainstream results-based management (RBM) across budgets and programs. While the reform will become effective in 2017 in Senegal, it has been progressively implemented since 2012.
69
164. The programs most affected by these changes are the Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA
– average change: 115%), higher-education grants (average change: 75%), and the National Solidarity
Fund (FSN – average change: 35%). These changes illustrate two dysfunctions in the system. First, there
is a lack of control over grant budgeting in the administration of higher education, which was—
incidentally—revealed in the 2013 audit of the grant management policy (World Bank, 2015a) Second,
the process of estimating the amount necessary for shock response programs occurs outside the budget
planning process and without reference to food insecurity response requirements. Amending Finance Bills
are usually passed at the end of the third quarter of the year, whereas a food insecurity response has to
take place during the hunger period itself (the start of the third quarter).
Finance Law
Period of food insecurity
Amending Finance Law
*115% represents the average annual increase in the FSC budget as a result of the LFR between 2010 and 2015
Source: Author, based on compiled data
165. Some programs face zero resource allocation at the start of the fiscal year (represented by red
boxes in Table 23). The LFR corrects that and allocates amounts, sometimes even larger ones than in
previous years for those programs. However, this practice is unusual. The programs particularly affected
by this process are once again the Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA), the National Solidarity Fund
(FSN), and the Women's Entrepreneurship Fund. The other programs were programs that started during
the year in which their budget was included in the LFR. Nonetheless, this budgeting practice makes it
difficult for institutions to carry out their activities and meet their spending calendar for the fiscal year.
FIGURE 32: AVAILABILITY OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND RESPONSE TO FOOD INSECURITY (FOOD SECURITY STOCK)
+ 115% of allocated resources
Year N Year N+1
70
TABLE 23: CHANGE IN BUDGET ALLOCATION BETWEEN INITIAL FINANCE BILL (LFI) AND AMENDING FINANCE BILL (LFR)
% variation between LFI and LFR
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average change
PNBSF
0 in LFI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Higher-education grants
45.4%
125.0%
41.7%
62.8%
53.6%
22.8%
58.5%
Food security restocking
50.0%
210.0% 0 in LFI
66.7%
313.3%
50.0%
115.0%
National Pension Fund 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 18.4%
National Solidarity Fund
100.0%
100.0%
0 in LFI
15.0%
0.0% 0 in LFI
35.8%
Universal Health Coverage 0 in LFI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Nutrition Enhancement Program
0.0%
17.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
PRODAC
0 in LFI
60.0%
10.0%
Women's Entrepreneurship Fund
0.0%
100.0%
0 in LFI
0.0%
111.1%
0.0%
35.2%
Entrepreneurship support project
0 in LFI
750.0%
125.0%
Total 15.9% 109.3% 121.0% 30.5% 25.5% 13.2% 52.6%
Note: Only those programs with the largest budgets were selected
Source: Author, based on collected data
166. Moreover, the effective spending period is eight months, which affects the execution of these
institutions’ activities. No commitments are made before late February or early March, the period during
which the ministries await written notification of their budgets from the MEFP in order to be able to start
spending. The closing date for new commitment proposals is usually the start of November. This reduces
the time available for activities to be conducted normally.
167. Social welfare programs implement activities with limited running costs. Based on the qualitative
data collected regarding the administrative costs of the programs, the teams have scant resources for
implementing their programs' activities as the allocated budgets do not permit adequate implementation.
For example, the PNBSF has no running costs apart from those connected with DGPSN operations. No
budget is provided for the cost of cash transfer expenses, those of action awareness organizations, or that
of tracking households in the field. This is especially true for the programs implemented by sectoral
ministry departments and programs that receive no external funding.
71
168. Few programs have a robust beneficiary information management system (IMS) that can limit
fraud in the processing of beneficiaries and tracking benefits disbursed. For example, up to now, the
PNBSF has been managing payments for 200,000 beneficiaries on a spreadsheet. Similarly, the insurance
arm and the gratuity arm of the CMU have no IMS for managing new membership, nor does the Executive
Secretariat of the National Food Security Council for tracking food distribution to food insecure
households. Similarly, the SESAME has no comprehensive file of beneficiaries exempt from healthcare
charges because those data are kept at health centers. Also, the Court of Accounts pointed out in 2014
that IPRES had not yet modernized its IMS, causing delays in calculating benefits and making fraud
possible.
Accounting and Tracking of Funds to Be Improved
169. Social welfare interventions are not identified as such in the national budget, which makes it
difficult to track the financial execution of the strategy. This reduces the transparency of public accounts
and prevents policymakers from basing their decisions on complete information about the resources
available to the sector.
170. Tracking and measuring spending on running costs is laborious, making it impossible to analyze
the proportion of resources allocated directly to benefit payments. The transparency of the accounts of
entities in the parastatal sector (the agencies) that benefit from capital and current transfers from the
national budget, is limited. In addition, these institutions’ management accounts are not easily accessible,
and accounting reporting at some agencies is limited. For example, the FSN did not have to keep accounts
until 2013. As a result, it is impossible to know how funds are spent, either in terms of running costs or
benefit payments. Furthermore, operating expenditures are heterogeneous qualitatively and objectively,
making analysis difficult.
171. The tracking of spending from external funding is limited. Spending from external funding uses
accounting software that is separate from the government tracking of domestic resources. These
expenditures are not tracked in the SIGFIP as the Treasury is not the assigned account administrator. The
information is not compiled and the agencies and ministries are not included in their annual financial
report. Spending funded by development partners (DP) is not systematically audited, or audits cover only
financial donors and are not comprehensive across the entire structure or project concerned.
172. Tracking and assessing social welfare interventions remain weak overall. Annual activity reports
are not always available: either they do not exist, or they are no longer accessible because they were not
archived. The reports reviewed are of varying quality. Some do not show all the monitoring indicators
while others show discrepancies between the amount recorded in SIGFIP and the amounts in the report.
There is no systematic assessment of social welfare programs, with the exception of projects partly funded
from external resources. There are few assessments of the impact of social welfare interventions, and
where they do exist, the results are not always published.
173. A number of the targeted programs are managed by autonomous agencies whose management
accounts are not easily accessible. The resources allocated to them are budgeted as current transfers or
capital transfers, with no budget line itemization. In other words, the credits opened annually under the
72
Finance Bill consist of a single commitment at the beginning of the budget year, and the funds are paid
out into each deposit account with the Treasury's Paymaster General. Where program management
requires spending on running costs that comes from the allocated resources, the administrative
expenditures to be posted in the corresponding ASPIRE column could only be collected from the entities
tasked with implementing them, which was not always possible.
73
Chapter 7 – Recommendations
I – Recommendation 1: Improve Program Targeting
174. The targeting of programs for the poor and vulnerable groups should be improved to take into
account the households' poverty level. This would improve program effectiveness. In this context,
priority should be given to the following three actions:
a. Action 1.1: Redirect part of the expenditure dedicated to programs benefiting the richest
populations to programs benefiting the poorest populations;
b. Action 1.2: Use the Single National Registry (RNU) to target poor and vulnerable households;
c. Action 1.3: Use a combination of targeting methods rather than a purely category-based
approach.
Action 1.1: Redirect part of the expenditure dedicated to programs benefiting the richest populations to
programs benefiting the poorest populations
175. Increasing the effectiveness of poverty-reduction efforts will require allocating more resources
to programs that target the poorest populations. This can be done in two ways: (1) redirecting part of
the expenditure dedicated to programs benefiting the richest populations to programs targeting the poor,
and (2) increasing the budget of programs targeting the poor. It is clear that given Senegal’s current fiscal
situation, the first option should be explored before considering a budget increase.
176. Redirecting part of the expenditure dedicated to programs for the richest populations to
programs for the poorest populations could be done by reducing the expenditure dedicated to these
programs or by reducing some of the benefits provided by these programs. For example, the student loan
program could be reformed. Today, the program’s ambitions are universal while the number of students
increases every year; it should be reformed to reduce and limit the number of beneficiaries and thus allow
the government to control and reduce the program’s budget. Another example would be to reduce the
benefits the National Retirement Fund (FNR) provides to insured beneficiaries (the FNR currently provides
an average annual pension that is twice the amount of per capita GDP and approximately 80% of the
insured beneficiary's salary).
177. Redirecting some of these programs to the most vulnerable populations would also be an
option. For example, 59.7% of non-poor farmers benefited from the agricultural subsidy program,
compared to only 49.4% of poor farmers. The program’s implementation procedures and beneficiary
targeting methods could be revised so that poor farmers would benefit more widely from the program.
Another example could be to reform the subsidies to energy consumers. Even though these subsidies
were low during the period studied, they will undoubtedly increase if oil prices rise. They could be
reformed to benefit the poor to a greater extent.
Action 1.2: Use the Single National Registry to target poor and vulnerable households
178. For the first time, Senegal has a national tool designed to identify poor households. Using
community-based targeting and a survey, the Single National Registry (RNU) makes it possible to record
74
a set of socioeconomic variables about households that can be used when selecting program
beneficiaries and to estimate household consumption using a scoring system. Programs targeting the
poor and vulnerable groups should use this new resource to improve the effectiveness of social protection
interventions. Some new programs have done so (such as the insurance branch of the CMU), but this has
yet to become common practice. For example, given the limited resources of social assistance programs,
the Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC) program should use the RNU to ensure that the disabled living in poor
households receive the majority of the support, thus avoiding focusing significant resources on the
disabled living in non-poor households.
179. Securing the RNU’s future means improving its quality. Thoroughly updating the RNU’s data on a
regular basis is essential to keeping a social registry of poor households up-to-date. To do so, the RNU
must regularly organize campaigns designed to completely update its data, which will involve having
communities recertify poor households and conducting household surveys. Thus, when other social
programs use the RNU, they will continuously update the RNU’s data through the feedback they provide.
Social programs cannot wait for the RNU to be perfect before using it, as its construction and improvement
are an iterative process that will gain in strength through the greater use of its data.
Action 1.3: Use a combination of targeting methods rather than a purely category-based approach
180. International experience shows that it is better to combine targeting methods, for example by
combining geographic and livelihood-based targeting or category-based and consumption level-based
targeting to affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations. A purely category-based approach
should only be used for programs whose design would avoid directing significant resources to the non-
poor.
181. Using the RNU does not mean excluding other targeting methods. On the contrary, given the
limits of the RNU and the need for programs to control the list of their beneficiaries, programs must verify
the eligibility of the identified individuals or households and complete their own database in addition to
using the RNU. For example, the National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) could use the RNU
to generate a list of eligible households and then complete the targeting through community validation.
II – Recommendation 2: Strengthen the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Social Protection System for Fighting Poverty
182. Given poverty levels in Senegal, the social protection system must improve its efficiency and
effectiveness if it is to reduce poverty. Even though the social protection system cannot focus solely on
the poorest populations, it must provide a complete and coherent set of services and programs
households can navigate depending on their situation. The allocation of resources dedicated to the
various programs constitutes both a technical and political process. In this context, the following actions
are recommended:
- Action 2.1: Systematically evaluate program effectiveness;
- Action 2.2: Limit the number of small programs and consolidate these;
- Action 2.3: Establish tools that can be shared by the various programs;
- Action 2.4: Institutionalize and improve the sector’s multi-sectoral coordination.
75
Action 2.1: Systematically evaluate program effectiveness
183. The systematic evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of programs targeting the poorest
populations is essential to determining the technical and political orientation of the allocation of
resources to these programs. Although international experience can be used to start new programs that
could have a promising impact (see Box 2 on the impact of monetary transfer programs in Africa),
evaluating national policies is vital. Senegal’s government currently has little information on the impact
of its social protection programs. However, it has launched an evaluation of the impact of the PNBSF, the
results of which should be available in 2019. Given the budgets dedicated to the health insurance and free
health care arms of the CMU, impact evaluations of these programs should be carried out. The same is
true for the National Food Insecurity Response Plan (PRNIA).
Action 2.2: Limit the number of small programs and consolidate these
184. Senegal should limit the number of small social assistance programs. Consolidating existing
small programs into larger programs would result in: 1) saving resources by reducing implementation
costs and making resources available, and 2) increasing their impact on target groups by offering a
minimum level of quality and coordination between programs. For example, Senegal could: (a) close the
Ward of the State Support Program as well as the Disinherited Children Program and redirect their
beneficiaries to the PNBSF; (b) close the Destitute Patients Healthcare Program and redirect its
beneficiaries to the CMU; or (c) close or consolidate the Elderly Support Program, the Poverty Strategy
Implementation Support Program, the Leper Empowerment Program, and the Community Rehabilitation
Program into a broad national program aimed at improving the productive capacities of vulnerable groups
(see Recommendation 4) and redirect the beneficiaries concerned.
185. Consolidating these programs would release at least CFAF 1,490 billion from the national budget.
These financial resources could be allocated as additional resources to existing large programs or to launch
a new program aimed at improving the productive capacities of vulnerable groups.
Action 2.3: Establish tools that can be shared by the various social safety net programs
186. To build an efficient social safety net system, the various programs must share the same tools,
including a shared targeting mechanism (the Single National Registry – RNU), a claims mechanism, and a
payment mechanism, among others. Establishing and using shared tools will reduce operating costs and
improve program quality. In addition, using the RNU will increase synergies of action between programs.
By using these various tools, the social safety net programs will also improve the quality and efficiency of
the tools themselves: the more they are used, the more their operations and efficiency will improve.
Action 2.4: Institutionalize and improve the sector’s multi-sectoral coordination
187. Improving the sector’s multi-sectoral coordination could improve its efficiency and
effectiveness. To achieve this, the following actions could be taken: (a) have the Prime Minister’s office
coordinate the National Social Protection Strategy’s (SNPS) inter-ministerial monitoring committee in
order to stimulate shared coordination and vision among all actors; and (b) organize this multi-sectoral
coordination by sub-sector (social assistance or social safety nets, shock response programs, job market
programs and social security) in order to reduce the scope and number of participating actors and focus
discussions on the technical links to be established between programs.
76
188. Defining how each program contributes to achieving national goals could help avoid programs
that act too independently. This would create a stronger sense of belonging to a coherent system in which
programs reinforce one another in order to reach national objectives.
189. Finally, key social assistance programs and tools should be institutionalized in order to firmly
consolidate them within Senegal’s social protection system. Presidential and governmental initiatives as
well as key donor projects have led to recent progress in building the national social safety net system.
These initiatives and programs should be integrated into the social protection legislative framework in
order to perpetuate them and ensure their long-term funding.
III – Recommendation 3: Develop the Efficiency of Shock Response Mechanisms to Improve the Resilience of Poor and Vulnerable Populations to Covariant Shocks
190. Given climate change and the frequency with which Senegal is subject to a lack or irregularity
of rainfall, the social protection system should establish a mechanism designed to improve the
resilience of the most vulnerable households in an efficient manner. In this context, three actions are
recommended:
- Action 3.1: Use social safety net program tools to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
shock response programs;
- Action 3.2: Improve the funding of shock response programs during their planning and in the
amounts allocated;
- Action 3.3: Improve the quality and coordination of the implementation of shock response
programs.
Action 3.1: Use social safety net program tools to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of shock response programs (targeting mechanism, payment, claims, etc.)
191. In several countries, social safety net system tools have shown how effective they are in
improving the cost effectiveness of shock response programs. For example, in Kenya and Ethiopia,
adaptive social protection programs have been established and can be activated rapidly to respond to
cyclical shocks at lower cost by using social safety net identification and payment mechanisms. This
improved cost effectiveness allows governments to provide assistance to vulnerable households at lower
cost while also decreasing their reliance on emergency response actors.
192. In Senegal, shock response programs could use the Single National Registry (RNU) to identify
beneficiaries in order to: (1) rapidly identify households or individuals that are eligible for the program;
(2) reduce targeting costs; and (3) make the allocation of resources to the most vulnerable households a
priority.
193. Shock response programs could be associated with a social safety net program in order to use
their administrative and operational frameworks in their implementation. For example, using the
operational mechanism of the monetary transfer program (PNBSF) could give a shock response program
rapid access to all households regardless of their place of residence. The PNBSF has a network of over
7,500 community relays and 3,000 supervisors throughout the country, which could provide for better
77
targeting, inform communities or beneficiaries, or serve as a conduit for claims, among others. It would
be relatively easy for shock response programs to use this mechanism by amending the initial contract
linking the PNBSF and social operators (local NGOs that manage the community relays and supervisors).
194. Social safety net program payment and claims systems could be of use to shock response
programs. The PNBSF payment system could be used by some shock response programs in order to: (1)
complete transfers more rapidly; (2) increase the accountability and traceability of transfers: and (3)
improve the relevance of the transfers to beneficiaries. The claims system currently used by the PNBSF
could also be used by shock response programs to increase program accountability at lower management
costs while improving the quality and efficiency of the claims system through its more frequent use.
Action 3.2: Improve the funding of shock response programs during their planning and in the amounts
allocated
195. To respond to household shocks in a timely manner and thus limit the recourse to shock
response practices that are destructive for the economy of vulnerable households, Senegal’s
government should establish a funding strategy designed to respond to recurring shocks. Such a strategy
depends on the recurrence of shocks, their intensity, the number of households typically affected, the
impact of such shocks on these households, and thus the cost of an adequate response for these
households. Based on estimates, the government could determine a funding strategy that uses a series of
mechanisms designed to respond to the shock profile, including the national budget, insurance, loans,
special funds, obligations, etc. Once the array of financial tools corresponds to needs, the government
could make the required resources available more rapidly and launch the response program immediately.
This would greatly improve the efficiency and impact of programs for households affected by shocks.
196. To establish a proper shock response funding strategy, the response plan's triggers must be
defined clearly and precisely, as must response types in relation to the critical thresholds reached. The
involvement of the Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Planning (MEFP) the Prime Minister’s office,
and social protection actors is essential to defining this strategy and planning.
Action 3.3: Improve the quality and coordination of the implementation of shock response programs
197. To improve the quality and coordination of the implementation of shock response programs,
the required resources must be made available rapidly (see Action 3.2), the social safety net system
tools must be used (see Action 3.1), and the coverage and impact must be maximized at lower cost. The
amounts of transfers allocated to beneficiaries by certain shock response programs are relatively high.
For instance, the allocation given to PRNIA beneficiaries is CFAF 45,000 per month per household, which
corresponds to 100% of the food needs of a 9-person household. Since households have some resources
even during the hunger season, this amount probably exceeds their needs and thus limits the number of
households that can benefit from the program for a given budget. Establishing an amount that more
adequately corresponds to actual needs would minimize costs and maximize the impact on households
within a given budget.
198. Furthermore, if a response is to be fully effective, it must be planned, as must the coordination
of actors in the field. A quality response requires proper planning and the coordination of actors at the
central and local levels. Given the multi-sectoral nature of the actors involved in shock response, the Prime
78
Minister’s office has a specific role to play. While adopting a shock response funding strategy would
facilitate the annual planning and coordination of the response, all actors have an essential role to play in
its operational implementation.
IV – Recommendation 4: Promote Productive Household Investments in order to Increase the Productivity of the Most Vulnerable Populations
199. Improving household productivity is the best safeguard against chronic poverty and vulnerability
to shocks. This means combining social assistance programs with efforts to promote investments in the
human capital of children (to ensure better productivity for the next generation) as well as efforts to
promote the productive capacity of young people and adults. In this context, the following actions are
recommended:
- Action 4.1: Adapt productive programs to the poorest population, expand them, and make sure social assistance beneficiaries are integrated into them;
- Action 4.2: Strengthen the productive capacities of poor young adults by responding to the many constraints they encounter and making wide use of existing mechanisms;
- Action 4.3: Improve the functioning of the labor market by connecting job seekers and employers and developing skills certification mechanisms through the private sector.
Action 4.1: Adapt productive programs to the poorest population, expand them, and ensure that social assistance beneficiaries are integrated into them 200. Senegal’s government should develop programs aimed at increasing the productive capacities
of poor households at the national level. Since a limited number of individuals currently benefit from
productive programs, these cannot have the desired impact on poverty reduction. As mentioned above
(Action 2.2), productive programs for the most vulnerable households (PAPA, PRBC, etc.) should be
consolidated into a national program with the necessary resources in order to reach a substantial number
of poor households.
201. Furthermore, these programs should implement a combined approach in order to address in a
coordinated manner the multiple constraints the poor encounter. International experience has shown
that financial transfers alone have a productive impact on economic activities in the short term, yet this
impact can be magnified by complementing transfer programs with a multi-dimensional productive
support package. However, the elements of the support package must be well-developed so that they
correspond to the particular profile of Senegal’s social safety net beneficiaries.
Action 4.2: Strengthen the productive capacities of poor young adults by responding to the many constraints they encounter and making wide use of existing mechanisms
202. As with poor households, productive programs targeting poor young adults should be
implemented to respond to the many constraints this target group encounters. Interventions offering
various services are those that have the most impact on the employability of young adults and help
facilitate their entry into the labor market. More specifically, these interventions combine technical
training and applied professional experience with training courses on life skills. In addition, depending on
the constraints experienced by the target groups, the most effective programs combine these different
types of training with literacy interventions, business start-up support (financial and technical), financial
79
and child care support for the duration of the program, skills certification, and intermediation (among
other services). Adapting the specific content of each program to the characteristics of its target group is
one of the keys to success. Moreover, these programs tend to have a stronger impact on the employability
of young women and at-risk, disadvantaged, and low-skilled young people.
Action 4.3: Improve the functioning of the labor market by connecting job seekers and employers and developing skills certification mechanisms through the private sector 203. Senegal’s government should establish and bring into operation a network of counseling,
information, and intermediation services for the employment and self-employment of young adults.
Among other things, this network could include intermediation services for employment in the formal and
informal private productive sector (CV counseling for young adults, information on economic interest
groups, information on job opportunities) and counseling services and information on training
opportunities or inclusion in programs aimed at improving productivity and vocational integration,
including employment counseling services, profiling and identification of individual constraints and
solutions, information services on training, internship, and apprenticeship opportunities, economic
interest group (EIG) training support, etc.
V – Recommendation 5: Revise the Entire Pension System to Ensure Its Financial Sustainability and Fairness
204. The current pension system must be fundamentally and entirely revised in order to give Senegal
an efficient and sustainable system that does not jeopardize the national budget's resources at the
expense of programs aimed at the poor. In this context, the social protection sector should implement
Action 5.1 below, which consists of analyzing the pension system in its entirety.
Action 5.1: Evaluate the financial situation of the FNR, the financial performance of the IPRES system,
and the fairness of the benefits provided by FNR and IPRES
205. A systemic analysis of the pension system must include several complementary elements. The
financial situation of the National Pension Fund (FNR) should be reviewed immediately in order evaluate
the fiscal risk it presents for the national budget. In addition, the financial performance of the Retirement
Savings Fund of Senegal (IPRES) over the last decade should be further analyzed in order to anticipate
future financial needs. Finally, the fairness of the benefits provided by FNR and IPRES should be thoroughly
evaluated.
80
Bibliography
African Risk Capacity (ARC). 2015. Situation du décaissement des fonds au Sénégal pour la mise en œuvre de la distribution alimentaire. Unpublished document. Johannesburg.
Agricultural and Rural Forecasting Initiative (IPAR). 2015. Subventions des intrants agricoles au Sénégal: Controverses et réalités. Dakar.
ANSD. 2011. Données d’enquête sur la pauvreté des ménages au Sénégal (ESPS II). Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
ANSD. 2012, Enquête Démographique et de Santé à Indicateurs multiples (EDS-MICS) 2010-2011. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
ANSD. 2013. Rapport sur la situation économique et sociale du Sénégal en 2013: Santé. Dakar : Republic of Senegal
ANSD. 2014. Rapport définitif: Recensement général de la population et de l’habitat, de l’agriculture, et de l’élevage 2013. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
ANSD. 2015. Enquête démographique et de santé continue. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
ANSD. 2016. Sénégal: Enquête Démographique et de Santé Continue (EDS) 2015. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
Cour des Comptes. 2014. Rapport Public 2014. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
CRES, World Bank, USAID, and Ministry of Agriculture. 2012. Revue diagnostique des dépenses publiques de base dans le secteur agricole. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
DAI/European Union. 2015. Prévisibilité de dépenses publiques liées à la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle au Sénégal: Advisory Service in Social Transfer (ASiST III). Dakar.
DGPSN. 2016. Rapport de la revue annuelle du secteur de la protection sociale 2015. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
DGPSN. 2017. Stratégie Nationale de Protection Sociale 2015-2035. Dakar : Republic of Senegal
Dieng, Moussa. 2016. Rapport sur la situation actuelle et projetée de la couverture sanitaire universelle au Sénégal. Working paper. World Bank, Dakar: .
Échevin, Damien. 2012. Issues and Options in Targeting and Social Transfers in Senegal. Background paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ferre, Céline. 2017. Sénégal: Résultats de l’enquête de référence du Programme National de Bourses de Sécurité Familiale. Dakar.
Gentilini, Ugo. 2014. Our Daily Bread: What is the Evidence on Comparing Cash versus Food Transfers? Social protection and labor discussion paper no. 1420. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Groupe Sectoriel Sécurité Alimentaire Sénégal. 2016. Bilan des partenaires du groupe sectoriel sécurité alimentaire. Dakar.
Human Rights Watch. 2016. New steps to protect Talibés and street children. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/28/senegal-new-steps-protect-talibes-street-children
81
International Monetary Fund. 2012. Staff Report for the 2012 Article IV Consultation and Eighth Review under Policy Support Instrument. Country report No. 12/337. Washington, DC.
International Monetary Fund. 2015. Staff Report for the 2014 Article IV Consultation and Eighth Review under Policy Support Instrument. Country report No. 15/2. Washington, DC.
International Monetary Fund. 2017. Staff Report for the 2016 Article IV Consultation and Third Review under the Policy Support Instrument. Country report No. 17/1. Washington, DC.
Ministère de la Famille et des Organisations Féminines. 2012. Étude sur la revue des dépenses publiques du secteur du développement social pour la période 2006 à 2010. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances, et du Plan and UNICEF. 2016. Analyse des dépenses publiques dans les secteurs sociaux au Sénégal sur la période 2006–2013. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et du Plan. 2017. Données du système d’information et de gestion des finances publiques de 2010 à 2016. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
Ministère de la Santé et de l’Action Sociale. 2016a. Rapport annuel d’activités 2015 de la CMU. Dakar: Republic du Senegal.
Ministère de la Santé et de l’Action Sociale. 2016b. Rapport annuel d’activités 2013, 2014, et 2015 de la DGAS. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
Ndiaye Babou and Bacary Diabate. 2012. Rapport d’évaluation actuarielle du régime de retraite des fonctionnaires du Sénégal pour la période 2010–2050. Dakar: Republic of Senegal.
OCHA. 2015. Plan de Réponse Stratégique Sénégal. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/Senegal_SRP_2015.pdf
PASEC. 2015. Performances des systèmes éducatifs en Afrique sub-saharienne francophone: Compétences et facteurs de réussite au primaire. Dakar: CONFEMEN.
Ratha and Shaw, 2007, “South-South Migration and Remittances,” Development Prospects Group, World Bank
Sadoulet, Elizabeth and Danamona Andrianarimanana. 2015. Évaluation de la méthodologie de ciblage du PNBSF au Sénégal. Working document. Washington, DC: World Bank.
UNICEF. 2016. Livre des statistiques clés: Plus de 100 tableaux sur la situation des enfants au Sénégal. Dakar: UNICEF Country Bureau.
World Bank. 2008. For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Nets. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2009. Specific guidance for social protection: Preparing PERs for Human Development. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2013. République du Sénégal: Évaluation des filets sociaux. Report No. ACS7005. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2015a. République du Sénégal: Revue des dépenses publiques du secteur de l’éducation. Report No. ACES 14246. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2015b. République du Sénégal: Évaluation de la pauvreté. Report No. ACS10625.
82
Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2015c. Revue de l’urbanisation du Sénégal: Villes émergentes pour un Sénégal émergent. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2015d. Senegal Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. Report No. 96296-SN. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2016a. Revue diagnostique du financement de la réponse aux catastrophes. Working document. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2016b. Sénégal: Le travail productif des jeunes: Un dossier urgent, un défi multisectoriel. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2016c. Pension Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: Brief Review of Design Parameters and Key Performance Indicators. Unpublished document. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2016d. Les effets distributifs de la politique budgétaire au Sénégal. Working paper. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2016e. Poverty and shared prosperity in Senegal: Characteristics and evolution. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2017a. Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2017b. Social Registries for Social Assistance and Beyond. Working paper. Washington, DC.
Annex 1 Description of social protection programs included in the analysis
Program Program description Start date End date if applicable
Implementing agency
Social assistance programs
Cash transfer programs
1 National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF)
Quarterly cash transfers of CFAF 25,000 to the poorest households for a period of 5 years
2013 General Delegation for Social Protection and National Solidarity
2 Program to reduce child vulnerability
Cash transfers to households with vulnerable children to help them keep children in school and provide them with healthcare services
Ministry of the Family – Directorate of Child Protection
3 Support program for wards of the state
Cash transfers to orphans (many orphaned by the 2002 Joola capsizing disaster)
National Office for Wards of the State
Student grants
4 Grants for higher education
Grants for higher learning (full or partial tuition) for all university students in Senegal or abroad
2007
Ministry of Higher Education – Directorate of Higher Education Grants
Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care
5 Medical care for the destitute
Provides medical coverage for the destitute 2009
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
6 HIV/AIDS program Provides screening and treatment for people affected by HIV
2001 National AIDS Council
7 SESAME Plan Guarantees access to healthcare for people over the age of 60
2006 Universal Health Coverage Agency
8 Free healthcare for children under 5
Children under 5 receive medical care at no cost
2013 Universal Health Coverage Agency
9 Insurance branch of Universal Health Coverage
Medical insurance through community-based health plans. Plan enrolment fees subsidized by the government (50%–100% of cost, or CFAF 3,500–7,000
2015 Universal Health Coverage Agency
10 Free cesarean sections Covers labor and cesarean sections in health centers and hospitals
2004 Universal Health Coverage Agency
11 Dialysis Covers the cost of dialysis services 2010 Universal Health Coverage Agency
School feeding programs
12 School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding programs
Offers one hot meal per day in elementary and secondary schools in rural and peri-urban areas
2006 Ministry of Education – Directorate of School feeding programs
13 WFP School feeding Program
Offers one hot meal per day in elementary and secondary schools in rural and peri-urban areas
1970 World Food Program
Nutrition programs
14 Community nutrition program
Aims to provide each Senegalese citizen with adequate nutrition and promotes nutritional habits to maximize well-being and community development. Screening, awareness, and distribution of therapeutic foods.
2002 National Committee to Combat Malnourishment
15 Social transfers to combat malnourishment
Temporary cash transfer programs to combat malnourishment and promote prenatal care for pregnant women
2009 National Committee to Combat Malnourishment
Services for children
16 Program for disadvantaged children
Assists vulnerable children (talibés, street children, orphans, etc.): education kits, subsidies for Islamic schools, training, etc.
2005
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
17 Community daycare Community daycare for children under 3 2013 Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
18 Program for street children
Helps get children off the street 2004 Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
19 Early childhood education program
Education centers for children aged 3–6. Includes learning, medical care, and nutritional support
2002 National Agency for Early Childhood Education
Other
20 Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC)
CECs help people with disabilities access equipment, training, healthcare, etc.
2014
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
Response to shocks programs
21
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) (CSA)
Distributes food assistance through the national response program (PNRIA)
1974
Food Security Commission (FSC)
22
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / WFP)
Distributes food assistance through the national response program (PNRIA)
2010
World Food Programme
23 Agricultural Disaster Fund Debt relief and financial support for farmers 1996
National Farm Credit Bank of Senegal (CNCAS)
24
Mitigation and catastrophy management
Emergency response. Distribution of in kind support
Ministère de l'Intérieur - Direction de la Protection Civile
25 National Solidarity fund
Distributes in-kind and financial support to affected households
2002
National Solidarity Fund (under the DGPSN)
26
Floods management Fund Finances flood prevention and flood response (generally pumping and assistance for affected households)
2012
Special Fund for Flood Management (FSGI)
27 Crop insurance
Government-subsidized (50%) crop insurance from CNAAS
2008
National Crop Insurance Fund of Senegal (CNAAS)
Labor market access programs
Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable
Support project for the elderly (PAPA)
Promotes IGAs for vulnerable elderly persons (60+) through training, micro-loans, and subsidies; also supports groups of individuals
2007
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support implementation of the poverty strategy
Grants and micro-loans for poor people 2008 2013 Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
Economic and Social Development Dynamics Support Program (PRODES)
Combats poverty; supports the creation of IGAs for the poorest populations
2013 Ministry of the Family – Poverty Monitoring Committee
Program to empower persons and families affected by leprosy
Improves living conditions of persons affected by leprosy – equipment transfers, micro-loans, IGAs
2010
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
Community-based re-adaptation program (PRBC)
Social and economic integration of disabled persons via training and funding for IGAs
2006
Ministry of Health and Social Action – General Directorate of Social Action
Entrepreneurship programs
Private sector support platform (PLASEPRI)
Promotes participation in the private sector by Senegalese immigrants so they can support their country’s economic development
2008 2015 Ministry of the Family
Financing for young peoples’ business ideas
Finances start-up activities 2013 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
Program for the professional insertion of young people
Promotes the hiring of young people in the formal sector
2014 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
National fund for the employment of young people
Finances self-employment projects through a national government-employer agreement
2000 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
National fund for the promotion of young people
Finances business projects of persons aged 18–35 without requiring a personal contribution or guarantee
2013 Ministry of Employment and Young People
National fund for women entrepreneurs
Promotes the training and strengthens the capacities of current and potential businesswomen; Provides support for preparing business plans;Finances projects by women ; Guarantees loans from savings and loan associationsentrepreneurs or led by women;
2004 Ministry of the Family
39
Agency for youth and suburban employment
Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, and self-employment
2012 2013 Ministry of Employment and Young People
National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
Provides information, consulting, and support for the creation of livelihoods
2001 2013 Ministry of Employment and Young People
Financing support for entrepreneurship
2013 Ministry of Finance
Program for community agricultural areas
2013 Ministry of Youth and Recreation
Training programs
43
Support program for vocational training and professional insertion
Targets the development of high-quality vocational and technical training equally accessible to males and females and meets the needs of social and economic development
2010
Ministry of Vocational Training, Apprenticeships, and Crafts
44
Office for the training and employment of suburban youth
Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, and self-employment
2001 2011 Ministry of Employment and Young People
Social insurance programs
Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal (IPRES)
Pension fund for private sector employees 1977
IPRES
National Pension Fund (FNR)
Pension fund for public sector employees 1962
Ministry of Finance – National Pension Fund (FNR)
47
Workers compensation and work-related illness (CSS)
Insures private sector employees against work-related accidents
1975
Social Security Fund (CSS)
48
Family benefits (CSS) Families contributing to the CSS can receive CFAF 7,800 per quarter per child (maximum of 6 children)
1975
Social Security Fund (CSS)
49
Health and social welfare services
Health services for private sector employees 1975
Social Security Fund (CSS)
50 Maternity leave Maternity leave for private sector employees 1975
Social Security Fund (CSS)
89
Annex 2 : Total spending from government’s budget from 2010 to 2015 per social protection program in millions of CFA
Programs
Total spending from government’s budget (internal resources)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Social assistance programs
47,027
41,130
47,624
69,349
81,766
73,284
Cash transfer programs
931
756
959
5,150
12,369
16,367
1
National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF)
-
-
-
3,625
10,904
15,668
2
Program to reduce child vulnerability
874
684
821
1,110
1,050
284
3
Support program for wards of the state
57
72
138
415
415
415
Student grants
39,000
34,000
40,000
47,000
53,000
35,600
4
Grants for higher education 39,000
34,000
40,000
47,000
53,000
35,600
Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care
3,970
4,701
4,532
12,769
12,562
16,558
5
Medical care for the destitute -
-
30
90
60
60
6
HIV/AIDS program 1,553
2,551
2,131
3,193
1,798
1,900
7
SESAME Plan 850
850
863
850
850
850
8
Free healthcare for children under 5
-
-
-
-
-
2,976
9
Insurance branch of Universal Health Coverage
-
-
58
5,000
6,000
6,292
10
Free cesarean sections 490
490
490
490
490
1,156
11
Dialysis 1,077
810
960
3,146
3,364
3,324
School feeding programs
1,061
717
1,166
1,210
381
834
12
School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding programs
1,061
717
1,166
1,210
381
834
13
WFP School feeding Program -
-
-
-
-
-
90
Nutrition programs
809
(122)
44
1,757
1,851
2,214
14
Community nutrition program
769
(162)
4
1,757
1,851
2,183
15
Social transfers to combat malnourishment
40
40
40
-
-
31
Services for children
1,256
1,078
923
1,463
1,603
1,711
16
Program for disadvantaged children
-
-
19
19
26
50
17
Community daycare -
-
-
252
421
-
18
Program for street children 56
28
56
42
56
56
19
Early childhood education program
1,200
1,050
848
1,150
1,100
1,605
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Response to shocks programs
8,992
4,332
12,189
6,622
6,589
4,175
21
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) (CSA)
1,556
2,173
4,900
1,500
3,160
1,800
22
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / WFP)
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
Agricultural Disaster Fund -
-
-
1,000
-
-
24
Mitigation and catastrophy management
3,327
259
4,539
1,122
479
375
25
National Solidarity fund 750
300
550
1,000
750
-
26
Floods management Fund 3,139
1,500
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
27
Crop insurance 220
100
200
-
200
-
Labor market access programs
2,160
2,395
2,414
2,555
5,794
15,407
Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable
546
537
489
535
963
965
28
Support project for the elderly (PAPA)
105
104
79
105
216
228
29
Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support
5
-
27
8
24
65
91
implementation of the poverty strategy
30
Economic and Social Development Dynamics Support Program (PRODES)
-
-
-
-
-
-
31
Program to empower persons and families affected by leprosy
140
136
114
138
221
213
32
Community-based re-adaptation program (PRBC)
296
297
269
284
502
459
Entrepreneurship programs
979
1,588
1,925
2,020
4,831
14,442
33
Private sector support platform (PLASEPRI)
-
-
19
19
26
-
34
Financing for young peoples’ business ideas
-
-
-
-
550
1,180
35
Program for the professional insertion of young people
-
-
-
-
36
National fund for the employment of young people
54
65
11
58
55
47
37
National fund for the promotion of young people
500
413
400
400
-
-
38
National fund for women entrepreneurs
300
1,000
900
800
1,900
715
39
Agency for youth and suburban employment
-
-
570
630
-
-
40 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
125
110
25
113
-
-
41 Financing support for entrepreneurship
-
-
-
-
2,000
8,500
42 Program for community agricultural areas
-
-
-
-
300
4,000
Training programs
635
270
-
-
-
-
43
Support program for vocational training and professional insertion
635
270
-
-
-
-
44
Office for the training and employment of suburban youth
-
-
-
-
-
-
Social insurance programs
129,737
133,475
150,626
153,290
164,806
80,000
45
Retirement Savings Fund of
Senegal (IPRES) 61,000
59,000
70,000
67,000
72,000
-
46 National Pension Fund (FNR)
92
54,000 59,000 64,000 69,000 75,000 80,000
47 Workers compensation and work-related illness (CSS)
3,028
3,090
3,186
3,203
3,164
-
48 Family benefits (CSS)
9,664
10,325
11,052
11,385
11,868
-
49 Health and social welfare services
164
141
142
132
132
-
50 Maternity leave
1,881
1,919
2,246
2,570
2,642
-
TOTAL in millions of CFA 187,916
181,332
212,853
231,816
258,955
172,866
financial data for IPRES and CSS were not available for 2015 when data was collected. For the purpose of the analysis, the data from 2014 were duplicated in order to keep the same scale
93
Annex 3 : Total spending from external funding (donors) from 2010 to 2015 per social protection program in millions of CFA
Programs
Total spent on external funding
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Social assistance programs
11,722
11,537
13,062
9,756
9,230
7,632
Cash transfer programs
-
-
-
-
-
550
1
National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF)
-
-
-
-
-
550
2
Program to reduce child vulnerability
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
Support program for wards of the state
-
-
-
-
-
-
Student grants
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
Grants for higher education -
-
-
-
-
-
Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care
5,647
4,899
3,055
32
4,565
4,424
5
Medical care for the destitute -
-
-
-
-
-
6
HIV/AIDS program 3,000
645
2,000
-
2,000
2,000
7
SESAME Plan -
-
-
-
-
-
8
Free healthcare for children under 5
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
Insurance branch of Universal Health Coverage
-
-
-
-
-
1,213
10
Free cesarean sections 2,647
4,254
1,055
32
2,565
1,211
11
Dialysis -
-
-
-
-
-
School feeding programs
3,512
2,745
6,671
7,928
2,633
1,655
12
School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
WFP School feeding Program 3,512
2,745
6,671
7,928
2,633
1,655
Nutrition programs
94
2,562 3,893 3,336 1,796 2,031 1,003
14
Community nutrition program 1,669
2,607
2,855
1,796
2,031
489
15
Social transfers to combat malnourishment
893
1,286
482
-
-
514
Services for children
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
Program for disadvantaged children
-
-
-
-
-
-
17
Community daycare -
-
-
-
-
-
18
Program for street children -
-
-
-
-
-
19
Early childhood education program
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC) -
-
-
-
-
-
Response to shocks programs 1,024
3,049
8,484
7,686
7,757
7,540
21
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) (CSA)
-
-
2,700
600
2,500
5,600
22
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / WFP)
1,024
3,049
5,784
7,086
5,257
1,940
23
Agricultural Disaster Fund -
-
-
-
-
-
24
Mitigation and catastrophy management
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
National Solidarity fund -
-
-
-
-
-
26
Floods management Fund -
-
-
-
-
-
27
Crop insurance -
-
-
-
-
-
Labor market access programs
3,127
2,490
3,585
9,028
2,591
2,865
Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable
1,503
722
469
-
805
295
28
Support project for the elderly (PAPA)
-
-
-
-
-
-
29
Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support implementation of the poverty
1,503
722
469
-
-
-
95
strategy
30
Economic and Social Development Dynamics Support Program (PRODES)
-
-
-
-
805
295
31
Program to empower persons and families affected by leprosy
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
Community-based re-adaptation program (PRBC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Entrepreneurship programs
-
-
128
6,935
936
-
33
Private sector support platform (PLASEPRI)
-
-
128
6,935
246
-
34
Financing for young peoples’ business ideas
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
Program for the professional insertion of young people
-
-
-
-
36
National fund for the employment of young people
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
National fund for the promotion of young people
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
National fund for women entrepreneurs
-
-
-
-
690
-
39
Agency for youth and suburban employment
-
-
-
-
-
-
40 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
-
-
-
-
-
-
41 Financing support for entrepreneurship
-
-
-
-
-
-
42 Program for community agricultural areas
-
-
-
-
-
-
Training programs
1,624
1,768
2,988
2,093
850
2,570
43
Support program for vocational training and professional insertion
-
-
-
-
-
-
44 Office for the training and employment of suburban youth
1,624
1,768
2,988
2,093
850
2,570
Social insurance programs -
-
-
-
-
-
45 Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal (IPRES)
-
-
-
-
-
-
46 National Pension Fund (FNR)
-
-
-
-
-
-
47 Workers compensation and work-related illness (CSS)
-
-
-
-
-
-
48 Family benefits (CSS)
-
-
-
-
-
-
96
49 Health and social welfare services
-
-
-
-
-
-
50 Maternity leave
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL in millions of CFA 15,873
17,076
25,130
26,470
19,578
18,037
97
Annex 4 : Number of beneficiaries per social protection program from 2010 to 2015
Programs
Beneficiary numbers
Counting units 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Social assistance programs
Cash transfer programs
1 National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF)
households
-
-
-
49,088
95,000
197,751
2 Program to reduce child vulnerability
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 Support program for wards of the state
individuals
-
-
-
-
696
720
Student grants
4 Grants for higher education
individuals
62,000
78,000
80,000
85,000
103,278
107,632
Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care
5 Medical care for the destitute
individuals
-
-
1,554
2,572
1,606
-
6 HIV/AIDS program individuals
21,028
15,771
13,716
18,436
-
-
7 SESAME Plan individuals
-
-
-
-
215,000
94,161
8 Free healthcare for children under 5
individuals
-
-
-
-
1,269,059
2,016,765
9 Insurance branch of Universal Health Coverage
individuals
-
-
-
-
-
792,985
10 Free cesarean sections individuals
589
-
-
6,705
12,066
17,961
11 Dialysis individuals
-
-
-
-
550
550
School feeding programs
12
School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding programs
individuals
254,371
265,523
277,164
289,315
301,999
344,706
13 WFP School feeding Program
individuals
564,165
565,650
489,589
499,130
499,130
303,738
98
Nutrition programs
14 Community nutrition program
inviduals
888,205
1,136,405
1,364,819
1,542,219
1,602,726
1,475,147
15 Social transfers to combat malnourishment
households
23,225
26,266
6,008
-
-
10,807
Services for children
16 Program for disadvantaged children
individuals
-
-
176
176
573
653
17 Community daycare individuals
-
-
-
-
- 0
18 Program for street children individuals
-
-
-
-
-
-
19 Early childhood education program
individuals
103,575
110,865
113,155
132,734
140,678
144,760
Other
20 Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC)
individuals
-
-
-
- 0
2,021
Response to shocks programs
21
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) (CSA)
individuals
22
National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / WFP)
individuals
54,574
39,085
142,000
300,881
257,690
85,855
23 Agricultural Disaster Fund individuals
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 Mitigation and catastrophy management
individuals
-
-
-
-
-
-
25 National Solidarity fund individuals
-
-
-
-
1,167
2,665
26 Floods management Fund individuals
27 Crop insurance individuals
-
1,511
2,257
9,751
13,559
19,690
Labor market access programs
Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable
28 Support project for the elderly (PAPA) groups
-
-
88
205
716
808
29
Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support implementation of the poverty strategy groups
1,440
700
3,414
-
-
-
30 Economic and Social groups
99
Development Dynamics
Support Program (PRODES)
- - - - 1,023 1,094
31
Program to empower persons and families affected by leprosy groups
-
-
112
611
691
869
32 Community-based re-adaptation program (PRBC) groups
1,900
-
943
1,961
2,287
3,125
Entrepreneurship programs
33 Private sector support platform (PLASEPRI)
individuals
-
-
-
-
-
-
34 Financing for young peoples’ business ideas
individuals
-
-
-
-
-
1,655
35
Program for the professional insertion of young people
individuals
-
-
-
-
-
281
36
National fund for the employment of young people
-
-
-
-
-
-
37 National fund for the promotion of young people
-
-
-
-
-
-
38 National fund for women entrepreneurs
-
-
-
-
-
-
39 Agency for youth and suburban employment
-
-
-
-
-
-
40 National Agency for Youth Employment (ANPEJ)
-
-
-
-
-
-
41 Financing support for entrepreneurship
-
-
-
-
-
-
42 Program for community agricultural areas
-
-
-
-
-
-
Training programs
43
Support program for vocational training and professional insertion
-
-
-
-
-
-
44
Office for the training and employment of suburban youth
-
-
-
-
-
-
Social insurance programs
45 Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal (IPRES)
individuals
119,096
128,360
132,672
129,055
135,466
-
46 National Pension Fund (FNR)
individuals
56,618
58,713
61,342
64,027
67,364
70,186
47 Workers compensation and work-related illness
individuals
2,660
2,333
2,506
2,191
1,736
-
100
(CSS)
48 Family benefits (CSS) individuals
439,748
503,088
519,744
547,818
535,545
-
49 Health and social welfare services
individuals
17,186
27,021
25,935
24,848
24,283
-
50 Maternity leave individuals
2,936
3,099
3,376
3,416
-
-