Republic of Senegal Social Protection public expenditure review 2010-2015 Analytical report Solène Rougeaux World Bank 2017 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 – Healthcare Coverage Is High among Children under 5 and Pregnant Women While Other Groups Are I 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 i 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 ii 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 i 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 ii UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USD United States Dollar WFP World Food Program iii 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 iv 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 v 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. vi 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 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. FIGURE 1: CHRONOLOGY OF THE MAIN SHOCKS TO SENEGAL’S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, 1980–2012 (2004–2006 = 100) 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). 5 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 Place of Quintile 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, 2.8 4.0 3.4 2.9 2.4 1.1 1.6 3.9 etc.) 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. 6 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. NGO, Use of Loan Family Family No Sale of Aid Aid OBC Savings Support Support Strategy Assets from Support within from Friends Country Abroad Death of the family 0.9 2.3 12.5 24.9 8.8 31.2 14.0 17.1 38.7 breadwinner Illness or serious 1.2 3.4 25.9 36.3 12.5 27.7 16.4 15.8 18.9 accident 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, 0.7 0.8 7.0 6.3 7.5 5.2 2.3 2.2 77.6 drought, flooding, etc.) Loss of livestock (fire, 0.3 0.5 7.5 6.1 2.2 1.2 0.3 0.9 82.0 disease, theft, etc.) Significant loss of 3.4 0.0 3.5 11.3 9.1 14.8 3.9 12.0 62.3 income (temporary layoff, etc.) Partial or complete loss of home (fire, flooding, 2.1 3.0 8.3 12.5 2.9 3.7 1.7 2.7 66.4 etc.) 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). 7 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. 8 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 X X working age SO3: Set up a system of guaranteed minimum income X X and health coverage for the elderly 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 X X X disasters 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 9 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 National Family Quarterly cash transfers of CFAF 25,000 General Delegation for 1 Security Grants to the poorest households for a period of 2013 Social Protection and Program (PNBSF) 5 years National Solidarity Cash transfers to households with Ministry of the Family – Program to reduce vulnerable children to help them keep 2 Directorate of Child child vulnerability children in school and provide them with Protection healthcare services Support program Cash transfers to orphans (many orphaned National Office for 3 for wards of the by the 2002 Joola capsizing disaster) Wards of the State state Student grants Ministry of Higher Grants for higher learning (full or partial Grants for higher Education – Directorate 4 tuition) for all university students in 2007 education of Higher Education Senegal or abroad 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. 10 Ministry of Health and Medical care for Provides medical coverage for the Social Action – General 5 2009 the destitute destitute Directorate of Social Action Provides screening and treatment for 6 HIV/AIDS program 2001 National AIDS Council people affected by HIV Guarantees access to healthcare for Universal Health 7 SESAME Plan 2006 people over the age of 60 Coverage Agency Free healthcare for Children under 5 receive medical care at Universal Health 8 2013 children under 5 no cost Coverage Agency Medical insurance through community- Insurance branch of based health plans. Plan enrolment fees Universal Health 9 Universal Health 2015 subsidized by the government (50%– Coverage Agency Coverage 100% of cost, or CFAF 3,500–7,000 Free cesarean Covers labor and cesarean sections in Universal Health 10 2004 sections health centers and hospitals Coverage Agency Universal Health 11 Dialysis Covers the cost of dialysis services 2010 Coverage Agency School feeding programs School feeding programs – Offers one hot meal per day in Ministry of Education – 12 Directorate of elementary and secondary schools in 2006 Directorate of School School feeding rural and peri-urban areas feeding programs programs Offers one hot meal per day in WFP School 13 elementary and secondary schools in 1970 World Food Program feeding Program rural and peri-urban areas Nutrition programs Aims to provide each Senegalese citizen with adequate nutrition and promotes National Committee to Community nutritional habits to maximize well-being 14 2002 Combat nutrition program and community development. Screening, Malnourishment awareness, and distribution of therapeutic foods. Social transfers to Temporary cash transfer programs to National Committee to 15 combat combat malnourishment and promote 2009 Combat malnourishment prenatal care for pregnant women Malnourishment Services for children 11 Assists vulnerable children (talibés, street Ministry of Health and Program for children, orphans, etc.): education kits, Social Action – General 16 disadvantage 2005 subsidies for Islamic schools, training, Directorate of Social d children etc. Action Ministry of the Family – Community 17 Community daycare for children under 3 2013 Poverty Monitoring daycare Committee Ministry of the Family – Program for street 18 Helps get children off the street 2004 Poverty Monitoring children Committee Education centers for children aged 3–6. Early childhood National Agency for Early 19 Includes learning, medical care, and 2002 education program Childhood Education nutritional support Other Ministry of Health and Equal Opportunity CECs help people with disabilities access Social Action – General 20 2014 Cards (CEC) equipment, training, healthcare, etc. 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 12 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 Beneficiaries Trigger Agency Populations facing food National Food Distributes food At the discretion insecurity Drought and Insecurity assistance Food Security identified by the of the Prime rainfall Response through the Minister; no clear national Commission (FSC) Executive shortages Program Secretariat of the trigger thresholds (PRNIA) response in place National Food program (PNRIA) Security Council (SE/CNSA) 13 National Food Distributes food Populations At discretion of Insecurity assistance facing food the Prime through the World Food Response insecurity Minister; no clear national Program Program identified by trigger thresholds (PRNIA) response SEA/CNSA or HEA in place program (PNRIA) Livestock feed is subsidized in Vulnerable targeted areas Livestock Subsidy covering Ministry of livestock; from May to July, Protection 50% of feed Livestock farmer selection scaled up or down Program (OSB) costs system unclear depending on drought conditions Distributes in- Vulnerable Ad hoc, based on kind and financial National households FSN assessments support to Solidarity Fund affected by and official Fires, floods As needed affected (FSN) shocks requests from households requesting governors support Finances flood prevention and Households flood response Special Fund for affected by Official request (generally Flood floods, from governors Floods As needed pumping and Management populations in and emergency assistance for (FSGI) severely flooded responders affected areas households) Agricultural Debt relief and National Farm Account holders Disaster financial support Credit Bank of Unknown at CNCAS Fund for farmers Senegal (CNCAS) Agricultural risks Index insurance Mostly based on climate Government- National Crop commercial data (rainfall as Crop subsidized (50%) Insurance Fund of farmers measured at insurance crop insurance Senegal (CNAAS) (average farm weather stations) from CNAAS size: 1 hectare) and traditional insurance Source: World Bank, 2016a 14 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 End Start Implementing Program Description date date agency (if any) Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable Ministry of Health Promotes IGAs for vulnerable elderly and Social Action Support project for persons (60+) through training, micro- 1 2007 – General the elderly (PAPA) loans, and subsidies; also supports Directorate of groups of individuals Social Action Poverty reduction Ministry of the program (PRP) to Family – Poverty 2 support Grants and micro-loans for poor people 2008 2013 Monitoring implementation of Committee the poverty strategy Economic and Social Ministry of the Development Combats poverty; supports the creation Family – Poverty 3 Dynamics Support 2013 of IGAs for the poorest populations Monitoring Program (PRODES) Committee 15 Ministry of Health Program to Improves living conditions of persons and Social Action – empower persons 4 affected by leprosy – equipment 2010 General and families transfers, micro-loans, IGAs Directorate of affected by leprosy Social Action Ministry of Health Community-based Social and economic integration of and Social Action – 5 re-adaptation disabled persons via training and funding 2006 General program (PRBC) for IGAs Directorate of Social Action Entrepreneurship programs Promotes participation in the private Private sector sector by Senegalese immigrants so they Ministry of the 6 support platform 2008 2015 can support their country’s economic Family (PLASEPRI) development Financing for young National Agency for 7 peoples’ business Finances start-up activities 2013 Youth Employment ideas (ANPEJ) Program for the National Agency for Promotes the hiring of young people in 8 professional insertion 2014 Youth Employment the formal sector of young people (ANPEJ) National fund for the Finances self-employment projects National Agency for 9 employment of through a national government-employer 2000 Youth Employment young people agreement (ANPEJ) National fund for the Finances business projects of persons Ministry of 10 promotion of young aged 18–35 without requiring a personal 2013 Employment and people contribution or guarantee Young People Promotes the training and strengthens the capacities of current and potential businesswomen; • Provides support for preparing National fund for business plans; Ministry of the 11 women 2004 • Finances projects by women Family entrepreneurs entrepreneurs or led by women; • Monitors projects; • Guarantees loans from savings and loan associations Agency for youth and Ministry of Promotes employability, 12 suburban 2012 2013 Employment and entrepreneurship, and self-employment employment Young People 16 National Agency for Ministry of Provides information, consulting, and 13 Youth Employment 2001 2013 Employment and support for the creation of livelihoods (ANPEJ) Young People Financing support for 14 2013 Ministry of Finance entrepreneurship Program for Ministry of Youth 15 community 2013 and Recreation agricultural areas Vocational training programs Targets the development of high-quality Support program for Ministry of vocational and technical training equally vocational training Vocational Training, 16 accessible to males and females and meets 2010 and professional Apprenticeships, the needs of social and economic insertion and Crafts development Office for the training Ministry of Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, 17 and employment of 2001 2011 Employment and and self-employment suburban youth 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. 17 TABLE 7: SOCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS Program Description Start date Implementing agency Retirement Savings Fund Pension fund for private sector 1 1977 IPRES of Senegal (IPRES) employees Ministry of Finance – National Pension Fund Pension fund for public sector 2 1962 National Pension Fund (FNR) employees (FNR) Workers compensation Insures private sector employees Social Security Fund 3 and work-related illness 1975 against work-related accidents (CSS) (CSS) Families contributing to the CSS can Social Security Fund 4 Family benefits (CSS) receive CFAF 7,800 per quarter per 1975 (CSS) child (maximum of 6 children) Health and social welfare Health services for private sector Social Security Fund 5 1975 services employees (CSS) Maternity leave for private sector Social Security Fund 6 Maternity leave 1975 employees (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 Benefits determined on a pay-as- points system you-go basis Contribution rate General scheme: 14% 35% (12% by employee and 23% by Supplemental scheme: 6% employer) (employee pays 40% and employer pays 60%) Retirement age 60 years of age (55 for certain jobs) 60 (55 for the armed forces) and early retirement at 53 18 Accrual rate11 Pension amount calculated by 2% in 2002 and 1.8% since 2002 per multiplying the number of points year of contribution earned by the base point value Basis for determining First 36 months of contributions Average salary during last 3 years of pensions work Minimum years required to At least 1 year and at least 400 30 years (25 for the armed forces) qualify for pension rights points (15 years for full pension) 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 19 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. 20 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 ‒ 2015 change 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (% 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 5,287 4,885 5,998 11,583 8,385 18,272 246% programs Social insurance 129,737 133,475 150,626 153,290 164,806 169,806 31% Total social protection 203,789 198,732 237,983 258,286 278,533 280,709 38% expenditure Total social protection 155,327 144,890 172,150 187,694 201,462 205,364 32% expenditure, in real terms 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. 21 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. FIGURE 2: EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL SERVICES SECTORS, IN MILLIONS OF CFAF AND AS SHARE OF GOVERNMENT’S TOTAL SOCIAL EXPENDITURE Source: Author, based on collected data 22 FIGURE 3: COMPARING REMITTANCES, CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMS, AND TOTAL SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE 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. Source: Author, compilation of data from the Bilateral Remittances Matrix, World Bank, using ESPS II and data collected for the review 54. Over the 2010–2015 period, expenditure on various categories of FIGURE 4: EXPENDITURE AS SHARE OF TOTAL, BY TYPE OF SOCIAL social protection as a share of total PROTECTION 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 Source: Author, compilation of collected data 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. 23 55. Expenditure on social protection FIGURE 5: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL PROTECTION AS SHARE OF as a share of GDP grew little during the GDP 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. Source: Author, compilation of collected data 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 FIGURE 6: AVERAGE EXPENDITURE ON THREE TYPES OF SOCIAL PROTECTION AS SHARE OF GDP spends somewhat more BY COUNTRY 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 Source: World Bank (2017a) 1.14% of GDP. 24 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 FIGURE 7: TOTAL SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE, BY FUNDING beneficiary contributions and external SOURCE 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. 25 This included cash transfer programs19 and student grants programs. FIGURE 8: CHANGE IN EXTERNAL FUNDING AS SHARE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE, BY PROGRAM TYPE 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. 26 FIGURE 9: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 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. 27 FIGURE 10: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, EXCLUDING STUDENT GRANTS 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. 28 FIGURE 11: EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS SHARE OF TOTAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE SPENDING IN AFRICA Source: Author, compilation of ASPIRE data based on most recent data available (data collected between 2010 and 2016) FIGURE 12: TOTAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE BY FUNDING SOURCE 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 Source: Author, based on collected data 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. 29 Expenditures on Subsidies Were Higher than Expenditures on Social Assistance Programs 66. It is interesting to note FIGURE 13: COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURE ON SUBSIDIES AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, that while there was an EXCLUDING HIGHER EDUCATION GRANTS 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 Source: Author, compilation of collected data and International Monetary Fund Raffinage – SAR) and electricity (2012, 2016, 2017) data (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. 30 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). FIGURE 14: TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON CRISIS RESPONSE PROGRAMS 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. 31 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. 32 F IGURE 25: T OTAL EXPENDITURE ON EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS , IN MILLIONS OF CFAF 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. Source: Author, based on collected data V. – Expenditure on Social Insurance Programs 78. Total expenditure FIGURE 16: EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL INSURANCE, IN MILLIONS OF CFAF 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, Source: Author, based on collected data 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%). 33 79. Expenditure on the pension system alone absorbed 2% of FIGURE 17: EXPENDITURE ON PENSIONS AS SHARE OF GDP 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 Source: Author, based on collected data from the government for pensions. However, this situation, which is detailed in Chapter 5 , may change very soon. 34 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. 35 TABLE 10: SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS THROUGH THE LIFE CYCLE (Source: Author, collected data) Social protection Pregnant women and children School-age children People of working age Elderly people objectives under 5 Free healthcare for children under 5 Free cesarean sections School feeding University grants SESAME Plan programs Social assistance 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 Disaster fund National Food Insecurity Response Plan (WFP and FSC) Emergency programs Flood fund National Solidarity Fund (FSN) Agricultural insurance Subsidies for inputs and farm equipment PRODES ANPEJ Employment programs Support for entrepreneurs PAPA Program PRODAC Financing for young entrepreneurs Program for women entrepreneurs Workers' compensation (accidents and National Retirement Maternity leave Social insurance illness) Fund Family benefits Family benefits IPM IPRES 38 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. TABLE 11: COVERAGE OF CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAMS26 Social protection Age group / risk group program Target group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total population 13,508,715 Total population aged CMU insurance 792,985 6–59) branch 10,748,315 NA 7% People living in extreme 490,880 950,000 1,977,510 poverty PNBSF 1,958,764 NA 25% 48% 101% 21,028 15,771 13,716 18,436 People with HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS program 39,000 54% 40% 35% 47% NA People with serious 235,965 – – – – – 2,021 disability CEC 0.86% National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) NA Number of people Food Insecurity 54,574 39,085 142,000 300,881 257,690 85,855 facing food insecurity Response Plan (WFP) 927,416 (2015) NA 9% People affected by floods Flood fund NA NA People affected by National Solidarity shocks (all kinds) 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) 40 III – Healthcare Coverage Is High among Children under 5 and Pregnant Women While Other Groups I 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. 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 2,936 3,099 3,376 3,416 Pregnant women in the workforce Maternity leave 56,583 5% 5% 6% 6% NA Women needing a cesarean 589 6,705 12,066 17,961 section Free cesareans 22,152 3% NA 30% 54% 81% Children under 5 1,992,857 - - - - 1,269,059 2,016,765 Free healthcare 64% 101% PRNIA – community nutrition 888,205 1,136,405 1,364,819 1,542,219 1,602,726 1,475,147 Children under 5 service 1,992,857 45% 57% 68% 77% 80% 74% Children under 5 suffering from PRNIA – treatment for chronic 117,579 103,198 126,140 156,750 164,988 121,793 80,475 chronic malnourishment malnourishment 88% 107% 133% 140% 104% 68% Early Childhood Education 996,429 103,575 110,865 113,155 132,734 140,678 144,760 Children aged 3 to 6 (Case des tout-petits) 10% 11% 11% 13% 14% 15% Children aged 5–14 3,766,962 School feeding programs 254,371 265,523 277,164 289,315 301,999 344,706 (DCAs) 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 16% School feeding programs 564,165 565,650 489,589 499,130 499,130 303,738 Primary and middle schoolchildren (WFP) 2,223,149 25% 25% 22% 22% 22% 14% 439,748 503,088 519,744 547,818 535,545 Children under 19 Family benefits 7,272,029 6% 7% 7% 8% 7% ND Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about programs 42 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 FIGURE 18: BENEFICIARIES OF THE SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAM 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 Source: Author, based on collected data 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/ Social protection Target risk group program group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Children between 5 and 14 3,766,962 Children School feeding 254,371 265,523 277,164 289,315 301,999 344,706 enrolled in programs (DCAS, 2,223,149 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 16% 27 See Table 11 in Section II for the exact number of beneficiaries. primary government and funded) secondary School feeding 564,165 565,650 565,650 499,130 499,130 303,738 school programs (WFP) 25% 25% 25% 22% 22% 14% Children up 439,748 503,088 519,744 519,744 547,818 to the age of 19 Family benefits 7,272,029 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% ND 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 62,000 78,000 80,000 85,000 103,278 107,632 students University grants 143,939 NA 72% NA Number of women aged 15-59 in Program for women workforce entrepreneurs 1,257,405 ND Subsidies for inputs and farm equipment ND Agricultural insurance fund ND ND 1,511 2,257 9,751 13,559 19,690 Agricultural 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 1.8% 2.6% households PRODAC 755,532 ND 1,023 1,094 PRODES NA 0% 0% Unemployed Program to support population entrepreneurs 934,269 ND Unemployed National fund for women women entrepreneurs 514,237 ND Unemployed youth Financing program for 844,513 NA 1,655 young entrepreneurs 0.2% Youth insertion 281 program NA 0.03% Program for youth training and professional insertion ND Workers' 295,000 2,660 2,333 2,506 2,191 1,736 Formal sector compensation workers (accidents and illness) 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% ND Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about programs 46 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 FIGURE 19: RECIPIENTS OF RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS’ PENSIONS 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, Source: Author, based on data collected 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. 45 105. 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. FIGURE 21: FNR COVERAGE AND COST (% OF GDP) 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 Source: Author, based on data collected 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 Recipients of FNR 26,461 28,444 30,382 32,178 34,134 35,969 retirement benefits 3.4% 3.7% 4.0% 4.2% 4.4% 4.7% People over 60 Recipients of IPRES 119,096 128,360 132,672 129,055 135,466 retirement benefits 767,543 15.5% 16.7% 17.3% 16.8% 17.6% ND 215,000 94,161 SESAME Plan ND 36.1% 15.8% People over 60 880 2,050 7,160 8,080 without pension PAPA 596,108 ND 0.1% 0.3% 1.2% 1.4% Source: Author, compilation of data from Chapter 1 and data collected about the programs 46 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 FIGURE 22: PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS, BY TARGETING METHOD 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 Source: Author, based on data collected 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. 47 109. Exclusive use of the category-based targeting FIGURE 23: PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE, BY TARGETING TYPE (2015) 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 Source: Author, based on data collected 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. 48 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 FIGURE 24: BREAKDOWN OF STUDENTS RECEIVING UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS, programs shows that the majority of BY WEALTH QUINTILE 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. Source: ESPS II, ANSD 2011 FIGURE 25: PENSION RECIPIENTS OVER 60, BY WEALTH QUINTILE 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. Source: ESPS II, ANSD 2011 49 114. In 2011, healthcare FIGURE 26: PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVE POPULATION WITH ACCESS TO A beneficiaries belonged primarily to HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, BY WEALTH QUINTILE 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 Source: ESPS II, ANSD 2011 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). 50 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 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 254,371 265,523 277,164 289,315 301,999 344,706 beneficiaries Expenditure per 4,171 2,700 4,207 4,182 1,262 2,419 DCAS beneficiary per year 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 564,165 565,650 489,589 488,130 499,130 303,738 WTF beneficiaries Expenditure per 6,226 4,852 13,625 15,883 5,276 5,448 beneficiaries per year 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 103,575 110,865 113,155 132,734 140,678 144,760 beneficiaries Expenditure per 11,586 9,471 7,494 8,664 7,819 11,087 beneficiary per year 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 51 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. 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) 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. 52 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 F IGURE 27: USE OF SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AS SHOCK RESPONSE MECHANISM IN AFRICA 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, 53 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. 54 PNBSF Cash Transfers Will Not Be Enough to Break the Intergenerational Cycle of Poverty 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) 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). 55 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. 56 132. IPRES has an 80% dependency ratio, which means FIGURE 28: IPRES DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 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 Source: Author, based on collected data 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. FIGURE 29: POPULATION BREAKDOWN BY AGE GROUP AND PROJECTION Source: UN demographic projections 57 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). FIGURE 30: RATE OF CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC SECTOR RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 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. 58 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. 59 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 BOX 3: HOW BRAZIL, COLOMBIA, PAKISTAN, AND SENEGAL CREATED A SOCIAL be a decisive criterion in REGISTER FOR BETTER EFFICIENCY AND GREATER IMPACT designing assistance and Many countries use social registers to coordinate the identification, empowerment programs. recording, and assessment of household eligibility. These registers enable Such programs largely use programs to be more efficient through improved targeting, reduce the cost the language of vulnerability of such targeting, and encourage coordination, which permits households to in their targeting criteria. A be supported comprehensively. great number of them These registers were initially launched in Brazil and Colombia, where they associate the adjective form the core of the social welfare system. They are used by many programs “vulnerable” with a category, that target poor households in terms of health, education, water, electricity, such as “vulnerable women,” social nets, transportation, etc. In all, over 30 programs use Brazil’s Cadastro “vulnerable young people,” Único and Colombia’s SISBEN. vulnerable children,” etc. In Many countries around the world have now adopted social registers. In practice, every program Africa, Ghana's National Register serves to identify the beneficiaries of LEAP measures vulnerability (a cash transfer program) as well as destitute households under the National differently. In some cases, a Health Insurance System. Similarly, in Senegal, the Single National Register social survey is carried out to (RNU) is used by the National Family Security Grants Program (PNBSF), the Universal Health Coverage Program (CMU), and certain productive verify vulnerability. However, programs. when vulnerability is the sole criterion, there is no TABLE 1: EXAMPLES OF REGISTERS AROUND THE WORLD prioritization of support Country Name of register Number of Number of households programs using based on degree of (% of population) the register vulnerability, and this is in a context where the majority Brazil Cadastro Único 27.2 million (40%) 30+ of the population is poor and Social Register of Chile 12.3 million (70%) 65+ resources are limited. In such Households Colombia SISBEN 10.4 million (73%) 31 a case, benefits are allocated Georgia TSA Register 1.2 million (36%) 16 on a “first come, first served” National Socio- basis. Given that very often, Pakistan Economic Register 27 million (90%) 30 (NSER) the most vulnerable people Philippines Listahanan 15.3 million (77%) 52 are those with the least Registre National Senegal 450,000 (30%) 3 access to information, aid is Unique (RNU) unlikely to reach those most Source: Social Registries for Social Assistance and Beyond. Working paper. World excluded. Bank (2017b) 139. However, this has been changing since 2014, the year Senegal set out to construct a Single National Register (RNU). The goal of 60 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 61 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 TABLE 20: FILTERS THAT COULD BE USED IN THE RNU beneficiaries of the higher-education grants program or subsidies for Program Potential filters agricultural inputs or machinery HEA scoring Food Insecurity Response would limit the unfairness of the Program (PRNIA) system. With the RNU as the basis, Subsidies for Agricultural Agricultural households living in poverty benefits under such programs could Inputs and Machinery PRODAC Young people from households living in be allocated transparently to the poverty in a rural area poorest and thereby boost the impact PAPA People over 60 belonging to a of those programs instead of household living in poverty Program to Combat Poor households with at-risk children targeting the wealthiest, as is Vulnerable Children currently the case. Support for Wards of the Orphaned children living in a poor State household Medical Care Program for Persons living in a poor household 145. In addition, using the RNU to the destitute target food insecurity response SESAME Plan People over 60 belonging to a poor programs would achieve substantial household savings that could be redistributed School Cafeterias Schoolchildren living in a poor household to beneficiaries. In 2014, the Agricultural Disaster Fund Poor households living from agriculture government spent CFAF 600 million who suffered a shock on targeting the food insecurity National Solidarity Fund (FSN) Poor households who suffered a shock Equal Opportunity Cards Person with a disability living in a poor response program and CFAF 100 (CEC) household million in 2015. At the same time, Childhood Deprivation Poor households with children under 12 NGOs also targeted their Program beneficiaries and spent several million CFA francs in doing so. A Source: Author, based on collected data 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 62 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 FIGURE 31: CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL NET SYSTEMS IN AFRICA 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 63 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. 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) 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. 64 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 Each municipality is granted Each local authority is granted power to […]: power to […]: power to […]: • Participate in the • Organize and manage • Participate in the universal universal health coverage support for the needy; health coverage program program (CMU); • Participate in the universal (CMU; • Participate in the health coverage program • Allocate and distribute maintenance and (CMU). study grants and school management of social aid. encouragement and reintegration centers; • Help fund productive projects for deprived populations. 65 Promote education, literacy, knowledge of national languages, and occupational training Article 312 Article 313 Each department is granted Each municipality is granted power to […]: power to […]: • Support occupational • Allocate and distribute training; study grants and school • Allocate study grants and aid; 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 66 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) Own Grants Social welfare activities resources Participation in CMU 30 5 Support for the destitute (cash and food transfers during 150 religious festivals) 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 67 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. 68 164. 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). FIGURE 32: AVAILABILITY OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND RESPONSE TO FOOD INSECURITY (FOOD SECURITY STOCK) + 115% of allocated resources Year N Year N+1 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. 69 TABLE 23: CHANGE IN BUDGET ALLOCATION BETWEEN INITIAL FINANCE BILL (LFI) AND AMENDING FINANCE BILL (LFR) % variation between LFI and LFR Average change 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 in LFI PNBSF 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 0 in LFI 50.0% 210.0% 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% 0 in LFI 0 in LFI National Solidarity Fund 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 0.0% 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% 0 in LFI PRODAC 60.0% 10.0% Women's Entrepreneurship 0 in LFI Fund 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 111.1% 0.0% 35.2% Entrepreneurship support 0 in LFI project 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. 70 168. 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 71 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. 72 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 73 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. 74 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. 75 188. 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 76 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 77 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 78 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. 79 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 80 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. 81 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. 82 Annex 1 Description of social protection programs included in the analysis End date if Program Program description Start date Implementing agency applicable Social assistance programs Cash transfer programs General Delegation for National Family Security Quarterly cash transfers of CFAF 25,000 to the 1 2013 Social Protection and Grants Program (PNBSF) poorest households for a period of 5 years National Solidarity Cash transfers to households with vulnerable Ministry of the Family – Program to reduce child 2 children to help them keep children in school Directorate of Child vulnerability and provide them with healthcare services Protection Support program for Cash transfers to orphans (many orphaned by National Office for Wards 3 wards of the state the 2002 Joola capsizing disaster) of the State Student grants Ministry of Higher Grants for higher learning (full or partial Grants for higher Education – Directorate 4 tuition) for all university students in Senegal or 2007 education of Higher Education abroad Grants Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care Ministry of Health and Medical care for the Social Action – General 5 Provides medical coverage for the destitute 2009 destitute Directorate of Social Action Provides screening and treatment for people 6 HIV/AIDS program 2001 National AIDS Council affected by HIV Guarantees access to healthcare for people Universal Health 7 SESAME Plan 2006 over the age of 60 Coverage Agency Free healthcare for Children under 5 receive medical care at no Universal Health 8 2013 children under 5 cost Coverage Agency Medical insurance through community-based Insurance branch of health plans. Plan enrolment fees subsidized Universal Health 9 2015 Universal Health Coverage by the government (50%–100% of cost, or Coverage Agency CFAF 3,500–7,000 Covers labor and cesarean sections in health Universal Health 10 Free cesarean sections 2004 centers and hospitals Coverage Agency Universal Health 11 Dialysis Covers the cost of dialysis services 2010 Coverage Agency School feeding programs School feeding programs – Offers one hot meal per day in elementary and Ministry of Education – 12 Directorate of School secondary schools in rural and peri-urban 2006 Directorate of School feeding programs areas feeding programs Offers one hot meal per day in elementary and WFP School feeding 13 secondary schools in rural and peri-urban 1970 World Food Program Program areas Nutrition programs Aims to provide each Senegalese citizen with adequate nutrition and promotes nutritional Community nutrition National Committee to 14 habits to maximize well-being and community 2002 program Combat Malnourishment development. Screening, awareness, and distribution of therapeutic foods. Temporary cash transfer programs to combat Social transfers to combat National Committee to 15 malnourishment and promote prenatal care 2009 malnourishment Combat Malnourishment for pregnant women Services for children Ministry of Health and Assists vulnerable children (talibés, street Program for Social Action – General 16 children, orphans, etc.): education kits, 2005 disadvantaged children Directorate of Social subsidies for Islamic schools, training, etc. Action Ministry of the Family – 17 Community daycare Community daycare for children under 3 2013 Poverty Monitoring Committee Ministry of the Family – Program for street 18 Helps get children off the street 2004 Poverty Monitoring children Committee Education centers for children aged 3–6. Early childhood education National Agency for Early 19 Includes learning, medical care, and nutritional 2002 program Childhood Education support Other Ministry of Health and Equal Opportunity Cards CECs help people with disabilities access Social Action – General 20 2014 (CEC) equipment, training, healthcare, etc. Directorate of Social Action Response to shocks programs National Food Insecurity Distributes food assistance through the Food Security Response Program 1974 national response program (PNRIA) Commission (FSC) (PRNIA) (CSA) 21 National Food Insecurity Distributes food assistance through the Response Program (PRNIA 2010 World Food Programme national response program (PNRIA) / WFP) 22 National Farm Credit Agricultural Disaster Fund Debt relief and financial support for farmers 1996 23 Bank of Senegal (CNCAS) Ministère de l'Intérieur - Mitigation and Emergency response. Distribution of in kind Direction de la Protection catastrophy management support 24 Civile Distributes in-kind and financial support to National Solidarity Fund National Solidarity fund 2002 25 affected households (under the DGPSN) Finances flood prevention and flood response Special Fund for Flood Floods management Fund (generally pumping and assistance for affected 2012 Management (FSGI) 26 households) Government-subsidized (50%) crop insurance National Crop Insurance Crop insurance 2008 27 from CNAAS Fund of Senegal (CNAAS) Labor market access programs Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable Ministry of Health and Promotes IGAs for vulnerable elderly persons Support project for the Social Action – General (60+) through training, micro-loans, and 2007 elderly (PAPA) Directorate of Social subsidies; also supports groups of individuals Action Poverty reduction Ministry of the Family – program (PRP) to support Grants and micro-loans for poor people 2008 2013 Poverty Monitoring implementation of the Committee poverty strategy Economic and Social Ministry of the Family – Development Dynamics Combats poverty; supports the creation of 2013 Poverty Monitoring Support Program IGAs for the poorest populations Committee (PRODES) Ministry of Health and Program to empower Improves living conditions of persons affected Social Action – General persons and families by leprosy – equipment transfers, micro-loans, 2010 Directorate of Social affected by leprosy IGAs Action Ministry of Health and Community-based re- Social and economic integration of disabled Social Action – General adaptation program 2006 persons via training and funding for IGAs Directorate of Social (PRBC) Action Entrepreneurship programs Promotes participation in the private sector by Private sector support Senegalese immigrants so they can support 2008 2015 Ministry of the Family platform (PLASEPRI) their country’s economic development National Agency for Financing for young Finances start-up activities 2013 Youth Employment peoples’ business ideas (ANPEJ) Program for the National Agency for Promotes the hiring of young people in the professional insertion of 2014 Youth Employment formal sector young people (ANPEJ) National fund for the National Agency for Finances self-employment projects through a employment of young 2000 Youth Employment national government-employer agreement people (ANPEJ) National fund for the Finances business projects of persons aged Ministry of Employment promotion of young 18–35 without requiring a personal 2013 and Young People people contribution or guarantee Promotes the training and strengthens the capacities of current and potential businesswomen; Provides support for National fund for women preparing business plans;Finances projects by 2004 Ministry of the Family entrepreneurs women ; Guarantees loans from savings and loan associationsentrepreneurs or led by women; Agency for youth and Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, Ministry of Employment 2012 2013 39 suburban employment and self-employment and Young People National Agency for Youth Provides information, consulting, and support Ministry of Employment 2001 2013 Employment (ANPEJ) for the creation of livelihoods and Young People Financing support for 2013 Ministry of Finance entrepreneurship Program for community Ministry of Youth and 2013 agricultural areas Recreation Training programs Targets the development of high-quality Ministry of Vocational Support program for vocational and technical training equally Training, vocational training and 2010 accessible to males and females and meets the Apprenticeships, and professional insertion needs of social and economic development Crafts 43 Office for the training and Promotes employability, entrepreneurship, Ministry of Employment employment of suburban 2001 2011 and self-employment and Young People 44 youth Social insurance programs Retirement Savings Fund Pension fund for private sector employees 1977 IPRES of Senegal (IPRES) Ministry of Finance – National Pension Fund Pension fund for public sector employees 1962 National Pension Fund (FNR) (FNR) Workers compensation Insures private sector employees against and work-related illness 1975 Social Security Fund (CSS) work-related accidents 47 (CSS) Families contributing to the CSS can receive Family benefits (CSS) CFAF 7,800 per quarter per child (maximum of 1975 Social Security Fund (CSS) 48 6 children) Health and social welfare Health services for private sector employees 1975 Social Security Fund (CSS) 49 services Maternity leave Maternity leave for private sector employees 1975 Social Security Fund (CSS) 50 Annex 2 : Total spending from government’s budget from 2010 to 2015 per social protection program in millions of CFA Total spending from government’s budget (internal resources) Programs 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 National Family Security 1 Grants Program (PNBSF) - - - 3,625 10,904 15,668 Program to reduce child 2 vulnerability 874 684 821 1,110 1,050 284 Support program for wards of 3 the state 57 72 138 415 415 415 Student grants 39,000 34,000 40,000 47,000 53,000 35,600 Grants for higher education 4 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 Medical care for the destitute 5 - - 30 90 60 60 HIV/AIDS program 6 1,553 2,551 2,131 3,193 1,798 1,900 SESAME Plan 7 850 850 863 850 850 850 Free healthcare for children 8 under 5 - - - - - 2,976 Insurance branch of Universal 9 Health Coverage - - 58 5,000 6,000 6,292 Free cesarean sections 10 490 490 490 490 490 1,156 Dialysis 11 1,077 810 960 3,146 3,364 3,324 School feeding programs 1,061 717 1,166 1,210 381 834 School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding 12 programs 1,061 717 1,166 1,210 381 834 WFP School feeding Program 13 - - - - - - 89 Nutrition programs 809 (122) 44 1,757 1,851 2,214 Community nutrition 14 program 769 (162) 4 1,757 1,851 2,183 Social transfers to combat 15 malnourishment 40 40 40 - - 31 Services for children 1,256 1,078 923 1,463 1,603 1,711 Program for disadvantaged 16 children - - 19 19 26 50 Community daycare 17 - - - 252 421 - Program for street children 18 56 28 56 42 56 56 Early childhood education 19 program 1,200 1,050 848 1,150 1,100 1,605 Other - - - - - - Equal Opportunity Cards 20 (CEC) - - - - - - Response to shocks programs 8,992 4,332 12,189 6,622 6,589 4,175 National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) 21 (CSA) 1,556 2,173 4,900 1,500 3,160 1,800 National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / 22 WFP) - - - - - - Agricultural Disaster Fund 23 - - - 1,000 - - Mitigation and catastrophy 24 management 3,327 259 4,539 1,122 479 375 National Solidarity fund 25 750 300 550 1,000 750 - Floods management Fund 26 3,139 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Crop insurance 27 220 100 200 - 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 Support project for the 28 elderly (PAPA) 105 104 79 105 216 228 Poverty reduction program 29 (PRP) to support 5 - 27 8 24 65 90 implementation of the poverty strategy Economic and Social Development Dynamics 30 Support Program (PRODES) - - - - - - Program to empower persons and families affected by leprosy 31 140 136 114 138 221 213 Community-based re- 32 adaptation program (PRBC) 296 297 269 284 502 459 Entrepreneurship programs 979 1,588 1,925 2,020 4,831 14,442 Private sector support 33 platform (PLASEPRI) - - 19 19 26 - Financing for young peoples’ 34 business ideas - - - - Program for the professional 35 insertion of young people - - - - 550 1,180 National fund for the 36 employment of young people 54 65 11 58 55 47 National fund for the 37 promotion of young people 500 413 400 400 - - National fund for women 38 entrepreneurs 300 1,000 900 800 1,900 715 Agency for youth and 39 suburban employment - - 570 630 - - National Agency for Youth 40 Employment (ANPEJ) 125 110 25 113 - - Financing support for 41 entrepreneurship - - - - 2,000 8,500 Program for community 42 agricultural areas - - - - 300 4,000 Training programs 635 270 - - - - Support program for vocational training and 43 professional insertion 635 270 - - - - Office for the training and employment of suburban 44 youth - - - - - - Social insurance programs 129,737 133,475 150,626 153,290 164,806 80,000 Retirement Savings Fund of Senegal (IPRES) 45 61,000 59,000 70,000 67,000 72,000 - 46 National Pension Fund (FNR) 91 54,000 59,000 64,000 69,000 75,000 80,000 Workers compensation and 47 work-related illness (CSS) 3,028 3,090 3,186 3,203 3,164 - Family benefits (CSS) 48 9,664 10,325 11,052 11,385 11,868 - Health and social welfare 49 services 164 141 142 132 132 - Maternity leave 50 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 92 Annex 3 : Total spending from external funding (donors) from 2010 to 2015 per social protection program in millions of CFA Total spent on external funding Programs 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 National Family Security Grants 1 Program (PNBSF) - - - - - 550 Program to reduce child 2 vulnerability - - - - - - Support program for wards of 3 the state - - - - - - Student grants - - - - - - Grants for higher education 4 - - - - - - Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care 5,647 4,899 3,055 32 4,565 4,424 Medical care for the destitute 5 - - - - - - HIV/AIDS program 6 3,000 645 2,000 - 2,000 2,000 SESAME Plan 7 - - - - - - Free healthcare for children 8 under 5 - - - - - - Insurance branch of Universal 9 Health Coverage - - - - - 1,213 Free cesarean sections 10 2,647 4,254 1,055 32 2,565 1,211 Dialysis 11 - - - - - - School feeding programs 3,512 2,745 6,671 7,928 2,633 1,655 School feeding programs – Directorate of School feeding 12 programs - - - - - - WFP School feeding Program 13 3,512 2,745 6,671 7,928 2,633 1,655 Nutrition programs 93 2,562 3,893 3,336 1,796 2,031 1,003 Community nutrition program 14 1,669 2,607 2,855 1,796 2,031 489 Social transfers to combat 15 malnourishment 893 1,286 482 - - 514 Services for children - - - - - - Program for disadvantaged 16 children - - - - - - Community daycare 17 - - - - - - Program for street children 18 - - - - - - Early childhood education 19 program - - - - - - Other - - - - - - Equal Opportunity Cards (CEC) 20 - - - - - - Response to shocks programs 1,024 3,049 8,484 7,686 7,757 7,540 National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) 21 (CSA) - - 2,700 600 2,500 5,600 National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / 22 WFP) 1,024 3,049 5,784 7,086 5,257 1,940 Agricultural Disaster Fund 23 - - - - - - Mitigation and catastrophy 24 management - - - - - - National Solidarity fund 25 - - - - - - Floods management Fund 26 - - - - - - Crop insurance 27 - - - - - - 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 Support project for the elderly 28 (PAPA) - - - - - - Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support 29 implementation of the poverty 1,503 722 469 - - - 94 strategy Economic and Social Development Dynamics 30 Support Program (PRODES) - - - - 805 295 Program to empower persons 31 and families affected by leprosy - - - - - - Community-based re- 32 adaptation program (PRBC) - - - - - - Entrepreneurship programs - - 128 6,935 936 - Private sector support platform 33 (PLASEPRI) - - 128 6,935 246 - Financing for young peoples’ 34 business ideas - - - - Program for the professional 35 insertion of young people - - - - - - National fund for the 36 employment of young people - - - - - - National fund for the 37 promotion of young people - - - - - - National fund for women 38 entrepreneurs - - - - 690 - Agency for youth and suburban 39 employment - - - - - - National Agency for Youth 40 Employment (ANPEJ) - - - - - - Financing support for 41 entrepreneurship - - - - - - Program for community 42 agricultural areas - - - - - - Training programs 1,624 1,768 2,988 2,093 850 2,570 Support program for vocational training and professional 43 insertion - - - - - - Office for the training and 44 employment of suburban youth 1,624 1,768 2,988 2,093 850 2,570 Social insurance programs - - - - - - Retirement Savings Fund of 45 Senegal (IPRES) - - - - - - National Pension Fund (FNR) 46 - - - - - - Workers compensation and 47 work-related illness (CSS) - - - - - - Family benefits (CSS) 48 - - - - - - 95 Health and social welfare 49 services - - - - - - Maternity leave 50 - - - - - - TOTAL in millions of CFA 15,873 17,076 25,130 26,470 19,578 18,037 96 Annex 4 : Number of beneficiaries per social protection program from 2010 to 2015 Beneficiary numbers Counti ng Programs units 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Social assistance programs Cash transfer programs National Family Security househ 197,75 1 Grants Program (PNBSF) olds - - - 49,088 95,000 1 Program to reduce child 2 vulnerability - - - - - - Support program for wards individ 3 of the state uals - - - - 696 720 Student grants Grants for higher individ 62,00 107,63 4 education uals 0 78,000 80,000 85,000 103,278 2 Targeted subsidies to improve access to health care Medical care for the individ 5 destitute uals - - 1,554 2,572 1,606 - individ 21,02 6 HIV/AIDS program uals 8 15,771 13,716 18,436 - - individ 7 SESAME Plan uals - - - - 215,000 94,161 Free healthcare for individ 1,269,05 2,016,7 8 children under 5 uals - - - - 9 65 Insurance branch of individ 792,98 9 Universal Health Coverage uals - - - - - 5 individ 10 Free cesarean sections uals 589 - - 6,705 12,066 17,961 individ 11 Dialysis uals - - - - 550 550 School feeding programs School feeding programs – Directorate of School individ 254,3 265,52 277,16 289,31 344,70 12 feeding programs uals 71 3 4 5 301,999 6 WFP School feeding individ 564,1 565,65 489,58 499,13 303,73 13 Program uals 65 0 9 0 499,130 8 97 Nutrition programs Community nutrition invidua 888,2 1,136, 1,364, 1,542,2 1,602,72 1,475,1 14 program ls 05 405 819 19 6 47 Social transfers to combat househ 23,22 15 malnourishment olds 5 26,266 6,008 - - 10,807 Services for children Program for disadvantaged individ 16 children uals - - 176 176 573 653 individ 17 Community daycare uals - - - - - 0 individ 18 Program for street children uals - - - - - - Early childhood education individ 103,5 110,86 113,15 132,73 144,76 19 program uals 75 5 5 4 140,678 0 Other Equal Opportunity Cards individ 20 (CEC) uals - - - - 0 2,021 Response to shocks programs National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA) individ 21 (CSA) uals National Food Insecurity Response Program (PRNIA / individ 54,57 142,00 300,88 22 WFP) uals 4 39,085 0 1 257,690 85,855 individ 23 Agricultural Disaster Fund uals - - - - - - Mitigation and catastrophy individ 24 management uals - - - - - - individ 25 National Solidarity fund uals - - - - 1,167 2,665 individ 26 Floods management Fund uals individ 27 Crop insurance uals - 1,511 2,257 9,751 13,559 19,690 Labor market access programs Income-generating activities (IGA) programs for the most vulnerable Support project for the 28 elderly (PAPA) groups - - 88 205 716 808 Poverty reduction program (PRP) to support implementation of the 29 poverty strategy groups 1,440 700 3,414 - - - 30 Economic and Social groups 98 Development Dynamics - - - - 1,023 1,094 Support Program (PRODES) Program to empower persons and families 31 affected by leprosy groups - - 112 611 691 869 Community-based re- 32 adaptation program (PRBC) groups 1,900 - 943 1,961 2,287 3,125 Entrepreneurship programs Private sector support individ 33 platform (PLASEPRI) uals - - - - - - Financing for young individ 34 peoples’ business ideas uals - - - - - 1,655 Program for the professional insertion of individ 35 young people uals - - - - - 281 National fund for the employment of young 36 people - - - - - - National fund for the 37 promotion of young people - - - - - - National fund for women 38 entrepreneurs - - - - - - Agency for youth and 39 suburban employment - - - - - - National Agency for Youth 40 Employment (ANPEJ) - - - - - - Financing support for 41 entrepreneurship - - - - - - Program for community 42 agricultural areas - - - - - - Training programs Support program for vocational training and 43 professional insertion - - - - - - Office for the training and employment of suburban 44 youth - - - - - - Social insurance programs Retirement Savings Fund individ 119,0 128,36 132,67 129,05 45 of Senegal (IPRES) uals 96 0 2 5 135,466 - National Pension Fund individ 56,61 46 (FNR) uals 8 58,713 61,342 64,027 67,364 70,186 Workers compensation individ 47 and work-related illness uals 2,660 2,333 2,506 2,191 1,736 - 99 (CSS) individ 439,7 503,08 519,74 547,81 48 Family benefits (CSS) uals 48 8 4 8 535,545 - Health and social welfare individ 17,18 49 services uals 6 27,021 25,935 24,848 24,283 - individ 50 Maternity leave uals 2,936 3,099 3,376 3,416 - - 10 0