72412 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond The first round of Country Status Overviews (CSO1) published in 2006 benchmarked the preparedness of sectors of 16 countries in Africa to meet the WSS MDGs based on their medium-term spending plans and a set of ‘success factors’ selected from regional experience. Combined with a process of national stakeholder consultation, this prompted countries to ask whether they had those ‘success factors’ in place and, if not, whether they should put them in place. The second round of Country Status Overviews (CSO2) has built on both the method and the process developed in CSO1. The ‘success factors’ have been supplemented with additional factors drawn from country and regional analysis to develop the CSO2 scorecard. Together these reflect the essential steps, functions and results in translating finance into services through government systems – in line with Paris Principles for aid effectiveness. The data and summary assessments have been drawn from local data sources and compared with internationally reported data, and, wherever possible, the assessments have been subject to broad-based consultations with lead government agencies and country sector stakeholders, including donor institutions. This second set of 32 Country Status Overviews (CSO2) on water supply and sanitation was commissioned by the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW). Development of the CSO2 was led by the World Bank administered Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) in collaboration with the African Development Bank (AfDB), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO). This report was produced in collaboration with the Government of Senegal and other stakeholders during 2009/10. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the collaborating institutions, their Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The collaborating institutions do 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 collaborating institutions concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to wsp@worldbank.org. The collaborating institutions encourage the dissemination of this work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.amcow.net or www.wsp.org. Photograph credits: Getty Images © 2011 Water and Sanitation Program An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Strategic Overview As a result of both the institutional reform of water and The second challenge lies in following through the sanitation in urban areas in 1996 and the programmatic implementation of the ‘third generation’ of institutional approach promoted by the Millennium Drinking Water and reforms, a main aim of which is to transition from the current Sanitation Program (PEPAM 2005-2015: Programme Eau leasing arrangement to full private concession. If this path Potable et Assainissement du Millénaire), the performance is taken the arrangement needs to identify a solution to of water supply and sanitation sector in Senegal is improving secure water resources for the increasing demand for water at a sustained pace. in Dakar whilst preserving the subsector’s positive social, technical, and financial performance. The country, which is experiencing an economic crisis and budget constraints, benefits from the support of several The third challenge, linked to the third generation urban committed external support agencies. The prospects for reforms, is to identify a set of urban sanitation solutions future funding thus remain positive. that better align revenue flowing to the Office National de l’Assainissement du Sénégal (ONAS) (or its successor) Within the sector there are three challenges: with operation and maintenance costs in order to create positive incentives for an expansion of sanitation coverage The first is that of rural sanitation, the only subsector to in urban areas. be significantly below the target set out in the Millennium Development Goals. In addition to the need to mobilize This second AMCOW Country Status Overview (CSO2) has further financing for rural sanitation there is a need to been produced in collaboration with the Government of evaluate past approaches in order to improve the impact of Senegal and other stakeholders. future interventions. 2 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Agreed priority actions to tackle these challenges, and ensure finance is effectively turned into services, are: Sectorwide • Simplify and consolidate the institutional organization of the supervisory ministries. • Link and systematize the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of physical to financial activities undertaken by those stakeholders intervening in rural areas and ensure the financial monitoring conducted by the Ministry of Finance enables easier identification of subsector flows. • Improve the reliability and forecasting of funding allocated by the government from its own budget. Rural water supply • Further professionalize the operations of borehole users’ associations (ASUFOR: Association d’usagers de forage). • Effectively implement delegation of the maintenance of motorized water pumps to the private sector and, from now on, assist the Operations and Maintenance Directorate to realign its assignments and competences. • Put in place a sustainable financing mechanism for the renewal of boreholes. Urban water supply • Ensure that the institutional reform currently being prepared doesn’t undermine either the positive performance of the subsector or its financial stability. • Secure more water resources to supply Dakar. • Ensure those interventions aimed at disadvantaged populations are targeted more effectively. Rural sanitation and hygiene • Build the capacities of the Sanitation Directorate. • Increase the funding allocated to the subsector. • Ensure that the means of intervention and of financing facilities are better aligned. Urban sanitation and hygiene • Mobilize the funding required to replace ageing networks and to achieve financial stability. • Change the status of the National Office of Urban Sanitation (ONAS: Office National de l’Assainissement du Sénégal) from a Public Utility (EPIC) to one with a more autonomous and client-oriented status. • Set up a licensing system for entities providing pit emptying services. 3 4 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................ 6 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends................................................................................................ 8 3. Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard.......................................................................................... 11 4. Institutional Framework................................................................................................................................. 13 5. Financing and its Implementation................................................................................................................... 15 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 17 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply....................................................................................................................... 19 8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply...................................................................................................................... 22 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene........................................................................................................ 25 10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene....................................................................................................... 27 Notes and References.................................................................................................................................... 30 5 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Acronyms and Abbreviations AEP(A) Water supply (and sanitation) NGO Nongovernmental organization (Approvisionnement en eau potable ONAS National Office of (Urban) Sanitation in (et assainissement)) Senegal (Office National de l’Assainissement AfDB African Development Bank du Sénégal) AMCOW African Ministers’ Council on Water PAQPUD Sanitation Program for Peri-Urban Areas of ANSD National Agency for Statistics and Dakar (Programme d’Assainissement des Demography (Agence Nationale de la Quartiers Péri-Urbains de Dakar) Statistique et de la Démographie) PEPAM Millennium Drinking Water and Sanitation ASUFOR Borehole Users’ Association Program (Programme d’Eau Potable et (Association d’usagers de forage) d’Assainissement du Millénaire) BPO Objective-Based Program Budget PLHA Local Water and Sanitation Plan (Plan local (Budget programme par objectif) d’Hydraulique et d’Assainissement) CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation RAC PEPAM Joint Annual Review CSO2 Country Status Overviews (second round) (Revue annuelle conjointe du PEPAM) DAS Sanitation Directorate REGEFOR Management Reform of Rural Boreholes (Direction de l’Assainissement) with Motorized Pumps (Réforme de la DEM Operation and Maintenance Directorate gestion des forages ruraux motorisés) (Direction de l’Exploitation et de la SDE Senegalese Water (Sénégalaise des Eaux) Maintenance) SONEES Senegalese National Company for DHP Public Hygiene Directorate Water Management (Société Nationale (Direction de l’Hygiène Publique) d’Exploitation des Eaux du Sénégal) DP Development partner SONES National Water Company of Senegal EPIC Public utility company status (Etablissement (Société Nationale des Eaux du Sénégal) Public à caractère Industriel et Commercial) SPEPA Water supply and sanitation public service GPOBA Global Partnership for Output-Based Aid law (Loi sur le service public de l’eau potable (the World Bank) et de l’assainissement) HH Household UCP PEPAM Coordination Unit IEC Information, education, and communication (Unité de Coordination du PEPAM) JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund JMP Joint Monitoring Programme (UNICEF/WHO) USAID United States Agency for International LIC Low income country Development MDG Millennium Development Goal WHO World Health Organization MTSEF Medium-Term Sector Expenditure WSP Water and Sanitation Program Framework WSS Water supply and sanitation Exchange rate: US$1 = 489.02 CFA Francs.1 6 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1. Introduction The African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW) commissioned the production of a second round of Country Status Overviews (CSOs) to better understand what underpins progress in water supply and sanitation (WSS) and what its member governments can do to accelerate that progress across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).2 AMCOW delegated this task to the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program and the African Development Bank who are implementing it in close partnership with UNICEF and WHO in over 30 countries across SSA. This CSO2 report has been produced in collaboration with the Government of Senegal and other stakeholders during 2009/10. The analysis aims to help countries assess their own service delivery pathways for turning finance into water supply and sanitation services in each of four subsectors: rural and urban water supply, and rural and urban sanitation and hygiene. The CSO2 analysis has three main components: a review of past coverage; a costing model to assess the adequacy of future investments; and a scorecard which allows diagnosis of particular bottlenecks along the service delivery pathway. The CSO2’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets, but what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure finance is effectively turned into accelerated coverage in water supply and sanitation. In this spirit, specific priority actions have been identified through consultation. A synthesis report, available separately, presents best practice and shared learning to help realize these priority actions. 7 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 2. Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends Coverage: Assessing Past Progress It is to be noted that the definitions and methodologies used by PEPAM and the JMP are not the same, which goes some According to data from the Millennium Drinking Water way in explaining the differences seen in the estimates. In and Sanitation Program (PEPAM), Senegal is on track to particular, for water supply, PEPAM calculates the access meet the national targets for drinking water. The access rate based on a comprehensive inventory of functioning rate stood at 85 percent at the end of 2008 with the target water facilities and an estimate of the number of users per set at 90 percent for 2015.3 In contrast, the JMP figures facility.5 In contrast, the JMP estimates the number of people (with an access rate of 69 percent at the end of 2008 with access to the service based on a linear regression of for a target of 81 percent in 2015)4 suggest that, if the the results of nationally representative household surveys, current pace is sustained, the Millennium Development conducted by the National Agency for Statistics and Goal (MDG) target for drinking water will be missed by 9 Demography (ANSD) since 1986. For sanitation, there are points (see Figure 1). two possible reasons why the PEPAM figures are lower than those of the JMP: first, PEPAM does not consider As far as sanitation is concerned, PEPAM estimates an traditional latrines to be ‘improved’, whereas some of these access rate of 43 percent in 2008 for a target of 70 percent are considered ‘improved’ by the JMP; second, the JMP, in 2015, whereas the JMP estimates a rate of 51 percent by using the results of household surveys or the national in 2008 for a target of 69 percent in 2015. Whilst there Census, includes those latrines constructed by households is a discrepancy between the estimates, they nevertheless themselves, independent of projects, whereas PEPAM, both lead to the same conclusion: the target for sanitation through its field-based facilities monitoring system, includes remains a big challenge. only those facilities built by donors, nongovernmental Figure 1 Progress in water supply and sanitation coverage Water supply Sanitation 100% 100% 80% 80% Coverage Coverage 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Government estimates Government target Government estimates Government target JMP estimates MDG target JMP estimates MDG target Sources: JMP and PEPAM. 8 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond organizations (NGO)/associations, local authorities, and field, in terms of the expansion of WSS services, have not housing cooperatives in planned settlements, and where yet been fully realized in all subsectors. these facilities are declared. In addition to overcoming the remaining gap in the Lastly, it is important to note that Figure 1 is based on Program’s funding, another US$41.2 million need to be combined rural and urban figures. These national averages mobilized each year for water and another US$49.3 million conceal large differences as rural areas are lagging behind each year for sanitation. It should be noted that these urban areas as far as both water supply and sanitation are figures, which were estimated for the 2010–2015 period, concerned (see Sections 7 to 10).6 are higher than PEPAM’s original funding requirements given in Table 1 and Figure 2. This is because much of the Investment Requirements: Testing the original annual funding gap across the period has been Sufficiency of Finance pushed into the few years remaining to 2015. Thus, while Table 1 and Figure 2 show the capital financing required, The Senegalese government estimated the investment the investment obtained and the resulting deficit for the requirements for the water supply and sanitation (WSS) entire PEPAM reference period, which is 11 years (2005– sector when PEPAM was launched at the beginning of 2015), the annual investment gap for the remaining 2005; this estimate has been updated several times since. years to 2015 has grown to US$41.2 million for water It is based on the 2004 access rate and on the 2015 targets and another US$49.3 million for sanitation. This deferring set by the government. According to these estimates, of deficits to the latter years of a multiyear program is a US$624 million will be required to finance the investment common problem across countries. program planned for the period 2005 to 2015 in the water supply sector, and US$638 million in the sanitation The scope of the investment requirements covered by sector. According to the PEPAM Joint Annual Review7 at the government estimates is broader than that required the end of 2009 (that is, virtually at the mid-way point) 60 for meeting the basic MDG service level requirements. percent of financing had been obtained for water supply In addition to including the costs of hygiene education and 54 percent for sanitation. While this is a significant and sanitation promotion, the investment program for achievement in securing financing the effects of this in the Senegal includes capacity-building, greywater collection Figure 2 Required vs. anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure Water Supply Sanitation Required CAPEX Required Required CAPEX Required OPEX OPEX 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 US$ million/year US$ million/year Public CAPEX (anticipated) Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit CAPEX deficit Sources: CSO2 costing and adapted PEPAM data (for the 2005-2015 period). 9 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Table 1 Coverage and investment figures8 Coverage Population CAPEX Anticipated Assumed Total requiring requirements public CAPEX HH deficit access CAPEX 2008 2015 Total Public Domestic External Total % % ‘000/year US$ million/year Rural water supply 76% 82% 180 31 28 7 19 26 3 2 Urban water supply 98% 100% 205 26 25 0 9 9 0 17 Water supply total 85% 90% 387 57 53 7 28 34 3 19 Rural sanitation 28% 63% 446 17 16 1 6 7 0 10 Urban sanitation 63% 78% 256 41 37 3 21 24 3 14 Sanitation total 43% 70% 703 58 53 4 27 31 3 24 Source: Adapted from PEPAM data (for the 2005-2015 period). facilities in households, wastewater treatment (particularly Table 2 industrial wastewater), public conveniences (toilet blocks Annual O&M requirements in schools, health centers, and public places), rainwater drainage, and heavy maintenance work. For sanitation in Subsector O&M US$ million/year particular, if limited to the MDG service level requirements, Rural water supply 3 the total investment requirement would be lower but a far Urban water supply 4 higher percentage of that requirement would need to be Water supply total 7 specifically allocated to improving household sanitation Rural sanitation 2 facilities. Until now the majority of funding for rural areas Urban sanitation 6 has been allocated to public and institutional latrines Sanitation total 9 (representing 60 percent of facilities constructed since Source: CSO2 estimates. 2005) and not to household sanitation (40 percent of facilities built). For urban areas, nearly 40 percent of the finance invested since 2005 has been allocated to treating that a large part of these O&M costs (OPEX) will be met industrial wastewater, with another large part pertaining by users, either out of their own income, in the case of to greywater, whereas only a negligible amount has gone household latrines, or through water bills. towards financing the construction of household latrines. For water supply, had the lower JMP coverage figures These considerations are only part of the picture. been used instead of the PEPAM figures, the investment Bottlenecks can in fact occur throughout the service requirements would have appeared higher, particularly for delivery pathway—all the institutions, processes and actors rural water supply. that translate sector funding into sustainable services. Where the pathway is well developed, sector funding In addition to the investment requirements presented should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. above, around US$16 million per year will be required to Where it is not, the above investment requirements may finance operation and maintenance (O&M) of current and be gross underestimates. The rest of this report evaluates future infrastructure, of which US$9 million is required for the service delivery pathway in its entirety, locating the sanitation facilities (CSO2 estimates, see Table 2). As in bottlenecks and presenting the agreed priority actions to many countries, in Senegal there is an implicit assumption help address them. 10 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 3. Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard In Senegal, the reform of urban water supply and sanitation with a GNI per capita above US$50010 (see Figure 3). As a in 1996 resulted in the establishment of three entities—the result, Senegal is one of the countries often held up as a National Water Company of Senegal (SONES), Senegalese model within the West African subregion. Water (SDE), and the National Office for (urban) Sanitation in Senegal (ONAS)—to which were attributed Whilst it is not surprising that Senegal is most often cited the responsibilities of the old national water company, as an example in the West African subregion, in terms of Société Nationale d’Exploitation des Eaux du Sénégal developing access to water supply services, sanitation still (SONEES). This reform also led to institutionalization of lags behind, particularly in rural areas. Nowhere in Sahelian the three consecutive multiyear sector programs (Water Africa has it been possible to find, then deploy on a large Sector Program 1996–2002, followed by the Long-Term scale, a rapid, effective and economic intervention strategy Water Supply Project 2002–2005, then by PEPAM 2005– for promoting sanitation to rural households; Senegal is 2015) and, at the same time, to improvements in the no exception to this. Nevertheless, the promising results of legislative framework which enabled rapid development the African Development Bank’s recent program and the within the sector. state authorities’ openness to innovative approaches both bode well for the future. This brief introduction puts the service delivery pathway in context, which can then be explored in detail using the CSO2 scorecard, an assessment tool providing a Figure 3 snapshot of reform progress along the service delivery Average scorecard results for enabling, pathway. This scorecard looks at nine building blocks of developing, and sustaining service delivery, and the service delivery pathway, which correspond to specific peer group comparison functions classified in three categories: three functions that refer to enabling conditions for putting services in Enabling place (policy development, planning new undertakings, budgeting); three actions that relate to developing the service (expenditure of funds, equity in the use of these funds, service output); and three functions that relate to sustaining these services (facility maintenance, expansion of infrastructure, use of the service).9 Each building block is assessed against specific indicators and scored from 1 (poor) to 3 (excellent) accordingly. The scorecard results for Senegal show a positive situation, not only for enabling conditions (political, legal, strategic, Sustaining Developing and programmatic context), but also for sustaining Senegal average scores services. The country’s performance as far as these two aspects are concerned is slightly higher than the average Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 for Senegal’s economic peer group—low-income countries Source: CSO2 scorecard. 11 An AMCOW Country Status Overview The average scorecard result for developing services in progress and challenges across three thematic areas—the Figure 3 is equivalent to that of peer-group countries, Institutional framework, finance, and monitoring and mainly because the poor results for sanitation are offset by evaluation (M&E)—benchmarking Senegal against its peer the relatively good performance of urban water supply. countries. The related indicators are extracted from the scorecard and presented in charts at the beginning of each Table 3 provides a summary of the main events in the WSS section. The scorecards for each subsector are presented sector reform process in Senegal. Sections 4 to 6 highlight in their entirety in Sections 7 to 10. Table 3 Key dates in the reform of the sector in Senegal Year Event 1971 The Compagnie Générale des Eaux du Sénégal (CGE Senegal), a subsidiary of CGE France, is nationalized and becomes the Senegalese National Company for Water Exploitation (SONEES: Société Nationale d’Exploitation des Eaux du Sénégal) in charge of water supply and sanitation in urban areas. 1981 The General Directorate responsible for water within the Ministry of Facilities becomes a separate ministry in order to give impetus to the water sector as part of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSS). 1983 Enactment of the Water Code (the decree implementing the provisions of the Water Code will not be promulgated until 1998). SONEES becomes a public service concession undertaking the technical supervision of projects. 1996 SONEES is dissolved and three new companies are created: National Water Company of Senegal (SONES: Société Nationale des Eaux du Sénégal), Senegalese Water (SDE: Sénégalaise des Eaux) and the National Office of Urban Sanitation (ONAS: Office National de l’Assainissement du Sénégal). 1996- The urban water supply sector is reformed and its performance improved as part of the Water Sector Program 2002 (PSE: Programme Sectoriel Eau). Management reform of rural motorized water pumps leads to the sale of water by volume and delegation of the service to users’ associations. 2002 The PSE is prolonged by the Long-Term Water Supply Project (PLT: Projet Eau à Long Terme). The WSS sector is identified as a priority in the PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper). ONAS launches the Sanitation Program for Peri-urban Areas of Dakar (PAQPUD: Programme d’Assainissement des Quartiers Péri-Urbains de Dakar) with the support of the World Bank. 2003 Water supply and sanitation, previously entrusted to the Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water, is divided between two ministries, one for rural and the other for urban WSS. Creation of a Sanitation Directorate, distinct from that for Water. 2005 Institutionalization of PEPAM, following on from the PLT, which constitutes a programmatic framework for achieving the MDG. Sanitation is set up under a ministry for the first time. 2008- Water supply and sanitation public service law (SPEPA); Sanitation Code; State-ONAS performance contract. 2009 Water and sanitation are reunited under one ministry before being separated once more. 2013 Final year of the SDE lease contract. An institutional reform, called the 3rd generation, should be put in place for urban water supply and sanitation. 12 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 4. Institutional Framework Priority actions for the institutional framework • Simplify and consolidate institutional organization at the supervisory (ministry) level, by reducing the number of national directorates. • Ensure that the next phase of urban sector reform puts a realistic and sustainable solution in place to cope with the increase in demand for water in Dakar and its outlying areas and with the need to renew ONAS’ capital assets. Make sure that this reform maintains the current financial stability of the urban water supply sector and promotes that of sanitation. • Ensure that the implementing provisions of the SPEPA law are adopted. In 15 years, the institutional and regulatory framework Strategy Paper 2007–2010. These texts are based on the of the WSS sector in Senegal has been significantly outline of the sector’s programmatic framework as set out reinforced, which has enabled the country to achieve good in the PEPAM 2005–2015. This framework sets targets results in terms of the level of institutional development, for access to water supply and sanitation before 2015, slightly higher than the average of its country peer-group defines an investment program, federates and drives all (see Figure 4). The WSS strategy for rural and urban sector initiatives carried out on national territory, and areas is set out in the Sector Policy Document for Water shares out roles and responsibilities between the program’s Supply and Sanitation (2005) and in the Poverty Reduction ‘implementation agencies’. At government level, water and sanitation, previously Figure 4 separated into two distinct ministries, were reunited in the Scorecard indicator scores relating to institutional first half of 2009 within the same ministry before being framework compared to peer group11 divided up again in the second half of that year between the RWS Ministry of Urban Development, Housing, Construction, and Water (MUHCH: Ministère de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat, de la Construction et de l’Hydraulique) on the one hand, and the Ministry of Sanitation and Public Hygiene (MAHP: Ministère de l’Assainissement et de l’Hygiène Publique) on USH UWS the other. The MUHCH supervises the four directorates of Urban Water (DHU), Rural Water (DHR), Operation and Maintenance (DEM), and Management and Planning of Water Resources (DGPRE), whereas the MAHP oversees the directorates of Sanitation (DAS) and Public Hygiene RSH (DHP). The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education are also involved through the Hygiene Directorate and the Senegal average scores Unit for Water and Hygiene in Schools, respectively. Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 In urban areas, water services have been delegated to the Source: CSO2 scorecard. a public company Société Nationale des Eaux du Sénégal 13 An AMCOW Country Status Overview (SONES) which is in charge of the assets and investment water and sanitation, as well as operational, administrative, in those urban centers that have been contracted out12 and financial M&E of projects/subprograms. as well as in the villages located near the Lac de Guiers water distribution pipeline. The concession contract for The local authorities—urban communes and rural SONES runs until 2026. Sénégalaise des Eaux (SDE) is the communities—have responsibility for local planning delegated private company responsible for operating the and take on the role of contracting authority for small public water service in those urban centers that have been and medium scale water and sanitation projects, in contracted out. It is linked to the state through a lease collaboration with central and regional state technical contract and to SONES through a performance contract. departments. As far as their resources (which are limited) The SONES and SDE come under the supervision of the allow, they ensure that their investments in their territory Directorate for Urban Water Supply. The Office National are aligned and conform to local planning requirements. de l’Assainissement du Sénégal (ONAS) is the agency Infrastructure management and the construction of larger charged with investing in and operating the (domestic and scale facilities (such as boreholes or treatment plants) are industrial) wastewater and rainwater treatment facilities not decentralized, however. in those urban centers within its contract scope on behalf of the state.13 It has Public Utility Company status (EPIC: There is no single institution responsible for the regulation Etablissement Public à caractère Industriel et Commercial). of the whole sector. Regulation is mainly conducted It is linked to the state through a performance contract through contracts and each of the different ministerial signed in June 2008 and comes under the supervision of directorates is responsible for supervising its own area: the Sanitation Directorate. This institutional set up for the the DHU is responsible for supervising and regulating the urban sector will shortly undergo further development as activities of SDE and SONES; SONES controls and regulates part of the so-called ‘third generation’ reforms. Indeed, SDE’s operation of the urban water supply; and the DAS and for the water services within the contract scope, the the DHP are responsible for sanitation and public hygiene. government of Senegal would like to move from the The 2008 law pertaining to the organization of the public current leasing arrangement to full concession to a private water service and domestic wastewater sewerage system operator by 2013. (called the SPEPA law) sets out the means of delegation and pricing of WSS services. It also makes provision for The role of the PEPAM Coordination Unit (UCP: Unité de the institutionalization of an Inter-ministerial Committee Coordination du PEPAM), created in 2005, coordinates of Monitoring and Control charged with technical and the activities carried out by the different PEPAM financial contractual regulation in the delegated urban ‘implementation agencies’; of directing donor finance centers; this is not yet in place as the implementing more effectively; and of undertaking M&E of access to provisions of this law have not been enacted. 14 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 5. Financing and its Implementation Priority actions for financing and its implementation • Mobilize more funds for the urban water sector and particularly for rural sanitation. • Complete the development of Local Water and Sanitation Plans (PLHA: Plan locaux d’Hydraulique et d’Assainissement), then ensure that local diagnostics and programming are reported to the central level in order to establish a national multiyear plan (in the form of a Medium-Term Sector Expenditure Framework, or MTSEF, supported by a Program Budget, or BPO: Budget programme par objectif). • Improve the percentage of domestic commitments utilized by setting up a suitable mechanism for securing financial contributions from the state to supplement development partners’ investment and by simplifying public procurement procedures. The scorecard performance of Senegal in terms of place (in January 2010, this was the case for two-thirds of indicators related to financing the WSS sector falls within the authorities), they can be consolidated and prioritized the average for its economic peer-group (see Figure 5). first at regional, then at national level to create the Medium-Term Sector Expenditure Framework (MTSEF), Investment planning at local authority level is supposed supported by an Objective-Based Program Budget (BPO).15 to be conducted through the Local Water and Sanitation This planning will better enable the available funding to be Plans (PLHA). At present, the PLHA is mainly a standardized directed towards priority investments and locations. There method for communities to carry out the inventory and is currently no link between activity planning at local level review of infrastructure, but ultimately, it should also and the allocation of finance obtained from central level. become an instrument for participatory sector planning Funds are currently allocated top-down to those areas not and budgeting. Once all local authorities have a plan in yet covered by donor projects, to those regions considered to have lower coverage than others, or following external support agencies’ areas of intervention. As a result, Figure 5 improvements could be made to ensure greater equity in Scorecard indicator scores relating to financing, the allocation of funds. compared to peer group14 At sector level, since 2005, there has been a good balance RWS between the financing allocated to water supply and to sanitation: since PEPAM was launched, the two sectors have received similar amounts, also relative to their respective requirements. Despite this, large differences have been observed between rural and urban areas: USH UWS for access to drinking water, in particular, urban areas have received three times less funding than rural areas although their needs are virtually the same (see Figure 6). This imbalance should be rectified over the course of the next few years—provided that the planned institutional RSH reform doesn’t create too much uncertainty. Senegal average scores For sanitation, it is the rural rather than urban areas Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 that have been neglected, not only in terms of planned allocations but also in terms of actual commitments made Source: CSO2 scorecard. since 2005. This can be partly explained by the high cost of 15 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 6 Overall and per capita investment requirements and contribution from different sources Rural water supply: Urban water supply: Rural sanitation: Urban sanitation: Total: $30,800,000 Total: $25,900,000 Total: $17,000,000 Total: $41,000,000 Per capita (new): $171 Per capita (new): $126 Per capita (new): $38 Per capita (new): $160 Domestic anticipated investment Assumed household investment External planned investment Gap Source: CSO2 costing and adapted PEPAM data (for the 2005–2015 period). sewerage systems in the urban centers managed by ONAS The national budget. It is currently difficult to gauge and by the low absorption capacity of the rural sanitation sector allocations as there is no BPO or MTSEF in place subsector (see Sections 9 and 10). For urban areas, until as yet. In 2008, during the AfricaSan+5 conference, the recently ONAS has tended to prioritize the region of government of Senegal committed to allocating 0.5 percent Dakar, where the population is growing very rapidly, at the of its investment budget to sanitation (the eThekwini expense of other secondary centers. This situation should declaration). The state strongly reiterated its commitment soon balance itself out with the new programs that are in April 2010 in Washington by announcing that it wanted currently being designed. For rural areas, PEPAM’s recent to allocate over US$24 million per year to the WSS sector water and sanitation subprograms have been targeting the between 2011 and 2015, specifically aimed at the rural South of the country (Kolda, Ziguinchor, Tambacounda, water supply and urban sanitation sectors.16 However, it Sédhiou), where access rates are lowest, with a view to is feared that the state will not be in a position to respect reducing regional disparities. these commitments as the economic crisis that has been affecting the state’s public finances since 2007–08 is International development aid finances more than severely restricting its investment capacity. This can be seen 85 percent of investment in the WSS sector (with two- in the low disbursement rate of internal resources allocated thirds of finance coming in the form of loans); this clearly to the sector. By way of example, there was an average illustrates the high dependence of the Senegalese state disbursement rate of 60 percent for rural water supply on its development partners. Overall, no reduction in aid during 2006–09 and of 25 percent for rural sanitation over is anticipated despite the global financial and economic the same period. This constitutes a major constraint for the crisis. This aid takes the form of projects and programs performance of these two subsectors. Delays in payment, supporting the PEPAM framework; however, a lack of and even payment cancellations, on the part of the public coordination and standardization of the approaches treasury are putting the progress of several programs at adopted by the different actors has been noted and risk, even those financed by development partners. this is the main weakness identified at this level. There is no sector budget support (SBS) in the WSS sector in The contribution of local authorities is limited by Senegal for several reasons, such as the instability and lack the financial, technical, and human resources available. of institutional visibility at ministerial level (although the Nonetheless, a certain number of rural communities are directorates remain relatively stable); the high number of supported in their WSS projects by the National Program PEPAM implementation agencies making the set up of SBS for Local Development (PNDL: Programme National de more complicated; the lack of transparency and forecasting Développement Local), as well as by nongovernmental in the management of public finances; and the existence organizations (NGOs), “decentralized cooperation”17 and of stable and reliable companies and offices in urban areas contributions from the associations of the Senegalese that ensure current financing is managed correctly. diaspora. 16 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation • Make the standards and calculation methods used by PEPAM and the JMP more compatible in order to reconcile the access data for each subsector. • Facilitate and systematize the monitoring of physical and financial activities by those actors intervening in rural areas. • Within the Ministry of Finance, improve the monitoring of finance obtained and disbursed by funding source and by subsector and ensure there is consistency with PEPAM data. A robust M&E mechanism for the sector is crucial The monitoring of facilities constructed is regularly for ensuring transparency, equity and efficiency in the and rigorously conducted by the PEPAM implementation allocation of available funds and for enabling this allocation agencies that collect data from the various projects and to be redirected when necessary. Once the monitoring of programs. For the water supply sector, there is a database financing is coupled with monitoring of physical activities, that lists all the waterpoints in the national territory, as well it becomes possible to verify whether the funds invested as their functionality, and this is monitored throughout have resulted in the development and improvement in the year. For sanitation, the household surveys conducted WSS services—in other words, to monitor the effectiveness every few years by the ANSD are the most reliable source of public expenditure. As can be seen in Figure 7, the of information. Between any two surveys, the access performance of Senegal in related scorecard indicators is rate is updated by including those facilities built by superior to that of its economic peer countries. different projects—although it is not possible to include facilities built by households independent of any project. Figure 7 The access rate is then adjusted once the results of the Scorecard indicator scores relating to sector M&E, subsequent household survey become available. Until compared to peer group18 very recently, the ANSD household surveys used different standards and definitions to those used by either the RWS PEPAM ‘implementation agencies’ or by the JMP, meaning that each produced inconsistent figures. However, a reconciliation of the procedures is now possible, as the process adopted for the next household survey has been defined in consultation between the ANSD and WSS USH UWS sector institutions. The monitoring of financial activities (commitments, disbursements, and percentage utilized) is not as effective. At sector level, monitoring by project and by subsector RSH is mainly conducted by the PEPAM Coordination Unit Senegal average scores (UCP). The Ministry of Economy and Finance also carries Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 out financial monitoring, but this is not always regular or comprehensive. Furthermore, the budget headings Source: CSO2 scorecard. in the finance law don’t enable the four subsectors to 17 An AMCOW Country Status Overview be differentiated. In addition, neither the UCP nor the needs some further refinement, it has served to open up Ministry is able to monitor the utilization of off-budget the debate on effectiveness. commitments (USAID, UNICEF, JICA, NGOs, local authorities or PNDL investment). Between US$40 and Once all the monitoring data has been collected from 60 million has been invested since 2005 without having the various PEPAM implementation agencies, it is verified been included in sector finance monitoring at the national by the UCP and compiled in the (quarterly and annual) level. Moreover, the successive reorganization of the progress reports, the quality of which is good and ministries means that it is impossible to calculate either continues to improve year on year. These reports are the financing utilized prior to 2003 or the distribution of published in a transparent manner on the PEPAM website this finance by subsector, source, and funding type. As (www.pepam.gouv.sn), online since June 2006, as well as a result, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the forming part of each joint annual review (RAC: revue public expenditure committed to the WSS sector over the annuelle conjointe), which brings together all sector last few years. Nevertheless, in 2010, the UCP undertook stakeholders, including development partners, regional an analysis of the level of disbursement for the principle technical department delegates and local authority rural water supply operations compared to the planned representatives, the private sector and the civil society implementation schedule—though an initial exercise that (consumer associations). 18 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply Priority actions for rural water supply • Further professionalize the operations of borehole users’ associations (ASUFORs) by implementing a continuous training program. • Accelerate the pace of delegation to the private sector of motorized water pumps maintenance and, from now on, support the DEM with its staff reorganization program and in the acquisition of new monitoring, back-up support and regulation skills. • Put in place a sustainable financing mechanism for the renewal of boreholes. Figure 8 Rural water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 3 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 Source: CSO2 scorecard. The CSO2 scorecard results for rural water supply are needs to be found annually to fully finance the plan mixed, although on average they are higher than those if the investment deficit is to be overcome over the of its economic peer-group of countries (see Figures 8 and next six years (2010–15). The annual deficit is lower, 9). The financial commitments made by both the state and by approximately US$2 million per year, if the entire external support agencies have, nevertheless, enabled the reference period of the program is considered (2005– subsector to progress. 10, shown in Figure 11). US$3 million per year is also forecast as the requirement for O&M costs (OPEX), According to PEPAM,19 the access rate to drinking generally borne by the users through their payment water in rural areas was 75.5 percent at the end of 2008, for water. compared to 64 percent in 2005 (see Figure 10). The sector targets will probably, therefore, be met or even exceeded. The area benefiting most from this new financing is the According to the JMP,20 however, the proportion of the South of the country, where the access rate is very low, rural population actually using improved facilities stood at as is the case in isolated areas. These regions, which only 52 percent at the end of 2008, raising uncertainty as are not easily accessible, have been afflicted by the to whether the 2015 target will be reached. Casamance conflict22 as well as by hydrogeological or even sociological obstacles. Priority has been given to Of the US$340 million required for the PEPAM investment the construction of small piped systems to reduce the program, 83 percent had already been mobilized by the use of unprotected water sources (wells, rivers, and so end of 2009.21 Nonetheless, nearly US$10 million still on) which is widespread in these regions. 19 An AMCOW Country Status Overview In terms of service quality, the average rate of functionality Figure 9 for rural multivillage boreholes with motorized pumps Average RWS scorecard scores for enabling, (the principle means of accessing improved water sources developing, and sustaining service delivery, and in Senegal) has been fluctuating around the 90 percent peer-group comparison mark for several years. This rate is higher than that seen Enabling on average in other countries in the subregion. In contrast, however, the physico-chemical quality of the water is a major issue in Senegal. This is especially true in the Central area of the country (Bassin Arachidier), where the salinity level and the fluoride, chloride, and iron content of the water often exceeds WHO standards. This is also the case in the isolated areas of the South due to the high levels of chemical pollution present in the groundwater table. Water quality, neglected for a long time, has now Developing Sustaining become the focus of attention. Sector stakeholders are now more aware of the issue: initiatives are in progress to find solutions to purify or transfer resources, and the Senegal average scores National Hygiene Service, in partnership with UNICEF, Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 has set up a project to monitor the quality of water used Source: CSO2 scorecard. for domestic consumption throughout the country. It is worth noting that if the water quality were taken into consideration, the access rate to drinking water would forages ruraux motorisés). The delegated managers— have reduced significantly. borehole users’ associations (ASUFOR: associations d’usagers de forage) or private operators—are entrusted Large-scale reforms have been undertaken to improve with the management of these boreholes on behalf of the sustainability of rural water services. The SPEPA the state and given a fixed-term operating license by law has institutionalized the principles of delegated the DEM. Today, ASUFORs have been set up for two- management and contract agreements, that were already thirds of the existing boreholes and have been trained successfully trialed between 1996 and 2004 as part of the in technical, financial, and accounts management of Management Reform of Rural Boreholes with Motorized facilities. The reform has led to increased financial viability Pumps pilot project (REGEFOR: Réforme de la gestion des of facilities (revenue is largely sufficient to cover O&M Figure 10 Figure 11 Rural water supply coverage Rural water supply investment requirements 100% 80% 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 10 20 30 40 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP improved JMP, piped Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP and PEPAM. Sources: CSO2 costing and adapted PEPAM data (for the 2005–15 period). 20 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond costs and some communities have even been able to build The instigators of this reform hope that it will lead to the up savings for capital expenditure). The reform has also rapid development of a dynamic private sector, providing lead to improvements in the condition of infrastructure, a good quality local service. The impact of these reforms and has sped up the rate of network expansion and the on water tariffs remains uncertain and is a major area of development of household connections. concern for users. Another reform that is currently in progress (the The rural water supply subsector is characterized by a implementation of which is experiencing significant certain level of inconsistency in interventions: there are delays) is that of motorized water pump maintenance significant differences in the procedures used for decision at boreholes. Whilst, up to now, maintenance has been making, public procurement, and disbursement, as well as the DEM’s responsibility, it is anticipated that this will be in the tools used, messages transmitted, and the setting handed over to a private operator, linked to the state up of projects, which impact scheme implementation. The through a maintenance contract and to the operator large number of actors intervening in rural areas works through a performance contract. Ultimately, once against the application of common principles required management for all boreholes has been transferred to the for instilling a sense of ownership, good governance, private sector, the DEM will redirect its activities towards harmonization, and alignment (principles from the Paris monitoring, regulation, and providing back-up support. Declaration on Aid Effectiveness). 21 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply Priority actions for urban water supply • Ensure that the institutional reform currently being prepared does not have a negative impact on the sector’s principles of financial stability, SONES’s repayment of its debt, an affordable tariff for the most disadvantaged users or the achievement of the MDG. Include the development partners and users in this discussion. • Secure more water resources to supply the capital, Dakar, and the Petite Côte in the medium to long term. • Ensure those interventions aimed at disadvantaged populations are targeted more effectively through the use of social pricing brackets and social connections. Figure 12 Urban water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 3 2.5 2 3 1.5 3 3 3 3 Source: CSO2 scorecard. The scorecard indicates that Senegal’s urban subsector 98 percent according to the PEPAM Joint Annual Review. is strong compared to its peer-group of subSaharan According to the official declaration for the Sanitation and countries, particularly in terms of sustaining services (see Water for All high-level meeting, standpipe or household Figures 12 and 13). In the Poverty Reduction Strategy connections stood at 94 percent, 87 percent of which Paper (Document Stratégique de Réduction de la Pauvreté were household connections.23 The JMP estimates a {2007-2010}), the national target set for the subsector is slightly lower access rate: 92 percent (see Figure 14). an access rate of 100 percent, by 2015. The Senegalese government has also committed itself to halving the These positive results are mainly due to the social proportion of the urban population without a private connections policy that SONES has implemented for over connection to the distribution network; this is more 15 years with the aid of donors—as per its contract with ambitious than the MDG targets that also count other the state that requires it to prioritize the disadvantaged means of accessing drinking water. The target it has set population. Over 145,000 subsidized connections were is to connect 88 percent of households to the network in thus realized between 1996 and 2008, which is 70 Dakar and 79 percent to networks in the regional centers percent of all connections carried out.24 However, this by 2015. Senegal is well on the way to achieving these policy primarily benefits the inhabitants of Dakar, who targets as, at the end of 2008, the overall access rate was do not necessarily constitute the poorest households, 22 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond whereas fewer than half of the inhabitants of Ziguinchor Figure 13 and Tambacounda, in the south of the country, have Average UWS scorecard scores for enabling, access through household connections. The method used developing, and sustaining service delivery, and to identify and target those eligible for social connections peer-group comparison is therefore being reviewed.25 Enabling According to PEPAM, the financial requirements for the urban water supply subsector stand at US$286 million, half of which is needed for Dakar and its surrounding areas. This figure corresponds to US$32 million per year if the investment deficit that needs to be made up over the next six years (2010–15) is considered; for the entire reference period of the program (2005–10), the annual Sustaining Developing deficit is lower, at US$17 million, as shown in Figure 15.26 At this stage, the prospects appear to be good, as the Senegal average scores subsector is attracting donors, with SONES and SDE both Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 being companies that perform well, have a high degree of autonomy and good management skills as well as Source: CSO2 scorecard. the adequate capacity to absorb funding. However, the presidential decision (made at the beginning of 2010) to sole exception being some of the capital’s outlying areas. place urban water supply (and even sanitation) under a The amount of nonrevenue water has stood at 20 percent full concession will have an impact on the future of the for the past three years, with the target set at 15 percent. subsector. In this context, it may be difficult to maintain This is still satisfactory compared to other countries in the the trust of donors or attract private finance. This is subregion. The action plan initiated by SDE for improving compounded by the fact that forthcoming investments water quality has led to increased conformity with will be large, which increases the risk of lending to the WHO physico-chemical and microbiological standards, company in question. particularly as regards iron content and the red coloring that this creates. Nonetheless, the presence of iron and Technical management of urban water supply is one of fluoride is still a major issue in the suburbs of Dakar and the best in the subregion. There is continuous service, the the Bassin Arachidier, respectively.27 Figure 14 Figure 15 Urban water supply coverage Urban water supply investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 10 20 30 40 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) JMP improved JMP, piped CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP and PEPAM. Source: CSO2 costing and adapted PEPAM data (for the 2005–15 period). 23 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Financial management is sound; in theory, the tariff tariff system because it is not able to properly target, and framework ensures financial stability of the subsector. For therefore benefit, poor households.29 domestic clients, the price has not increased since 200328 and the billing collection rate varies between 96 percent The main challenge facing SONES is that of securing and 98 percent. In 2006 the political authorities chose water resources to supply the population of Dakar and to apply a price increase only to administrations run by the Petite Côte by 2025. New technical solutions are being the state (SDE’s largest client) to spare domestic users. considered, particularly the desalination of seawater, which However, in the context of the current crisis, the state is a costly option. However, at the moment, maintaining is finding it difficult to pay its bills, meaning that rising financial stability in the sector is a priority. This is a major costs are not being sufficiently offset by an increase in issue that involves not only a pricing review, but also the SDE turnover. SONES and the government are currently institutional reorganization of the whole urban water considering the possibility of a price increase for all supply and sanitation sector. If the decision to place urban consumers, not only public administrations. If the increase WSS under concession is confirmed, this reform should be does indeed happen, then it should not be applied to implemented at the start of 2014. The processes are still poor households. This supposes a revision of the current yet to be defined. 24 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene • Reinforce the human, material, and financial resources of the Sanitation Directorate. • Increase the funding allocated to the subsector. • Ensure that the means of intervention and of financing facilities are better aligned. In Senegal, rural sanitation is the subsector that is confronted with the greatest challenges (see Figures 16 and 17). Figure 16 Rural sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Up-take Use 2.5 2.5 0.5 2 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Initially, the target set for rural sanitation was to move are high, inflation is rising at a rapid rate and obtaining from an access rate of 17 percent in 2005 towards a rate supplies of building materials from Dakar is difficult; of 59 percent in 2015. These figures have, however, been on the other hand, there is little willingness from users recalculated to align them with the standards defined to pay. The Sanitation Directorate (DAS) has therefore by the JMP: the baseline rate was set at 26.2 percent in decided to relax the technical standards and to review 2005, with a target of 63 percent in 2015. Despite the the methods of financing the facilities, as well as the requirement, put in place in 2006, for all water supply means of intervention, for forthcoming programs. As projects to include a sanitation component, the pace of a result, the PEPAM investment program has been re- facility construction is a lot lower than anticipated: the evaluated to US$187 million, 60 percent of which still access rate in 2008 was estimated to be 27.6 percent needs to be raised; this equates to US$18 million per year (38 percent according to the JMP)—in other words, if the investment deficit that needs to be made up over it is unlikely that the subsector target is reached (see the next six years (2010–15) is considered; if the entire Figure 18). reference period of the program is considered (2005–10), this becomes around US$10 million per year (as shown in This very slow progress in the rural sanitation access Figure 19). Over US$2 million per year are also required rate is due to several factors: on the one hand, the cost to cover maintenance costs, which will mainly be borne of the facilities is considerable as the technical standards by households. 25 An AMCOW Country Status Overview There are other factors that help explain the lack of progress Figure 17 in rural sanitation, including: the lack of management Average RSH scorecard scores for enabling, capacities and the ability to utilize funding within the developing, and sustaining service delivery, and Sanitation Directorate, which is still a small structure; the peer-group comparison difficulties of (pre-) financing the small enterprises that Enabling build facilities and experience cash flow issues; and the fact that the facilities to be built are spread over a wide geographical area. The construction of public conveniences is progressing at a good pace but sustainable management methods (in schools, health centers, public places or communities) still need to be defined to ensure sustainable investment. Sustaining Developing The DAS’s sanitation promotion policy consists of Senegal average scores combining awareness-raising with household subsidies. Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 The initial subsidy, set at 90 percent of the cost of the Source: CSO2 scorecard. facility (household latrine), has been revised down on the assumption that households will contribute more in terms of materials and labor. In parallel to this, a new initiative providing much needed hygiene education to the rural launched by the DAS, with UNICEF funding, and taken population and increasing demand for sanitation. Up up by other actors, consists of testing the Community- to now, sanitation promotion activities and the training Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach in areas not covered of local craftsmen have been implemented as part of by on-going or future planned projects. This approach different projects, with no harmonization or coordination. focuses on sanitation promotion and collective emulation To remedy this situation, as well as to share learning with no household subsidy. Whilst its success in Senegal is from past experiences, a Steering Committee was set yet to be confirmed, notably in terms of the construction up in 2009. This Steering Committee also ensures better of improved facilities on a large scale, the CLTS approach integration of hygiene promotion into WSS interventions, is nevertheless interesting because it focuses its efforts on in particular the practice of handwashing with soap. Figure 18 Figure 19 Rural sanitation coverage Rural sanitation investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 5 10 15 20 25 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) JMP improved JMP, improved + shared CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP and PEPAM. Source: CSO2 costing and adapted PEPAM data (for the 2005–15 period). 26 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene • Mobilize the funding required to replace ageing networks to reduce both the number of malfunctions and O&M costs. • Achieve financial stability within the subsector. • Change the status of ONAS by transforming it into a state-owned company, for example, to promote flexibility in the management of resources, make public procurement procedures less cumbersome and enable better control of its performance. • Set up a licensing system for entities providing pit emptying services to improve regulation of the market. In Senegal, the access rate to improved sanitation stood system is neither a realistic or affordable solution for the at 63.4 percent at the end of 2008 (69 percent according outlying areas of the capital. Indeed, this technical option to the JMP); this is slightly lower than forecast but still is highly cumbersome and any network extension only on track to meet the target set at 78 percent for the serves to increase ONAS’s operating costs. The decision subsector for 2015 (see Figure 20). to promote on-site sanitation and small bore sewers was therefore made, accompanied by an awareness- In the capital, the rapid progress that has been made is a raising campaign and subsidies to reduce households’ result of both the campaigns promoting social connections contribution to the capital cost. In seven years, PAQPUD to the sewerage system and the Sanitation Program for has benefited over 500,000 people, or 25 percent of the Peri-urban Areas of Dakar (PAQPUD, 2002–08). The latter capital’s peri-urban population. This campaign has been is based on acknowledgement of the fact that a sewerage extended by means of a new program financed by Global Figure 20 Figure 21 Urban sanitation coverage Urban sanitation investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 20 40 60 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) JMP improved JMP, improved + shared CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP and PEPAM. Source: CSO2 costing and adapted PEPAM data (for the 2005–15 period). 27 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Partnership for Output-Based Aid (GPOBA) with subsidies Figure 22 paid out based on the results of those operators charged Average USH scorecard scores for enabling, with building the facilities. The PAQPUD approach is developing, and sustaining service delivery, and currently being replicated in five secondary centers with peer-group comparison funding from the EU. Enabling The development of on-site sanitation should have a highly positive impact provided that there is a dynamic pit emptying services market in the urban centers and, further down the line, that there are adequate treatment plants where trucks can empty their sludge and/or ways of promoting the agricultural use of sludge. Whilst the situation is improving in Dakar, this is not yet the case for Developing secondary centers. Sustaining Senegal average scores The subsector’s financial requirements were recently Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. > US$500 revised to be US$450 million, which equates to nearly double the budget established in 2005. Sixty percent of this Sources: CSO2 scorecard. figure has already been obtained. It is worth highlighting that this figure includes the management of industrial wastewater, greywater, rainwater, and the construction The sustainability of the infrastructure is not assured. of public conveniences. The net financial requirement for In the towns managed by ONAS, the sanitation surcharge the treatment of domestic wastewater and excreta only included in the water bill covers most of the operating is around US$82 million (that is, US$13.6 million per year costs and the cost of renewing small equipment, but no for the 2010–15 period, or US$31 million per year based more. The level of the sanitation surcharge charged to the on a period running from 2005 to 2015, see Figure 21). A public administration was increased in 2009 and the state further US$6 million per year needs to be added to cover has committed to giving ONAS a subsidy to help it ensure O&M costs, which are supposed to be partly met by the financial stability. In the context of the current budget users of the service through a sanitation surcharge. A large crisis, the state is not, however, in a position to respect its percentage of external funding is given in the form of commitments, which is preventing ONAS from renewing loans, and subsidies are rare, which can seem somewhat its ageing networks and electromechanical equipment—a paradoxical given the low profitability of the sector. requirement that is becoming ever more urgent. Figure 23 Urban sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Up-take Use 3 2.5 1.5 3 0 1.5 2 1 1 Source: CSO2 scorecard. 28 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond As the sanitation surcharge is already levied on all consumers Both the negotiation of the State-ONAS Performance connected to the drinking water network, any extension to Contract in 2008 and the updating of the financial model the network inside these towns results in higher costs for drew attention to these issues, but the prospects for the ONAS without generating additional resources. This leads future remain uncertain. Any significant increase in the to further financial instability within the subsector and sanitation surcharge charged to users is made difficult by reduces the capacity of ONAS to maintain or renew the the low capacity of the households to pay. Even if the existing networks. It is, therefore, within the interests of development partners’ contribution were to be increased ONAS to extend its scope to new centers without building (the management and absorption capacities of ONAS are new networks: instead promoting on-site and semi-private continually improving), its Public Utility Company status sanitation, along the same lines as PAQPUD. Furthermore, (EPIC) prevents ONAS from taking out business loans and ONAS could delegate operation of its networks to the uncertainty over its future in the context of the on-going private sector (functionality, maintenance, and running reforms is also a potentially limiting factor. repairs) to reduce its costs. Unfortunately, the state of the infrastructure does not make this option very attractive to private stakeholders.30 29 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Notes and References 1 Forecast of the average FCFA-US$ exchange rate for the and approved; RWS/UWS: institutional roles defined; RSH/ 2009–11 period, United Nations Operational Rates of USH: institutional lead appointed. Exchange. In the initial contract, the scope of SONES (as well as 12 2 The first round of CSOs was carried out in 2006 covering 16 that of SDE) included 56 urban centers (all of the main countries and is summarized in the report, ‘Getting Africa communes) and just under 300 villages mainly located on-track to Meet the MDGs on Water and Sanitation’. near the pipelines. New centers were the focus of a study 3 Sources: PEPAM Coordination Unit (Unité de Coordination by SONES in 2008/2009 with a view to integrating these du PEPAM, UCP. 2009. Rapport de la Revue Annuelle into its scope. Conjointe du PEPAM, for the 2008 access rates; and ONAS manages sanitation services in the following urban 13 Government of Senegal. 2006. DRSP2 2007-2010 for the centers: Dakar, Pikine, Guédiawaye, Rufisque, Saint Louis, 2015 targets. The same sources are used for Sections 7 to Kaolack, Thiès, Louga and Saly, to which M’Bour, Richard 10. Toll, Touba, and potentially others will be added by 2015. 4 See UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Program. 2010. The relevant indicators are as follows. All subsectors: 14 Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2010 Update. programmatic Sector-Wide Approach; investment program The same source is used for Sections 7 to 10. The JMP based on MDG needs assessment; sufficient finance to estimates for Senegal are based on a linear regression meet the MDG; percent of official donor commitments of nationally representative household surveys that have utilized; percent of domestic commitments utilized. been carried out by the National Agency for Statistics and There is currently only one MTEF for RWS, developed in 15 Demography (ANSD) since 1986. June 2010. 5 This standard in Senegal is 150 people served by a well, See Government of Senegal. 2010. Déclaration officielle 16 handpump or community connection; 300 people for pour la Réunion de Haut Niveau, Initiative Assainissement a standpipe; 10 people for a household connection or et Eau pour Tous, Washington, April 23, 2010. household latrine. A relatively common phenomenon in Francophone West 17 6 Within this report, the term ‘urban’ relates to the scope Africa: exchange of technical or financial support between of intervention of SONES (for water supply) and for ONAS institutions of the global North and South, other than (for sanitation); this is more limited than the administrative central governments. definition used by ANSD. The only exception relates to The relevant indicators are as follows. All subsectors: 18 the JMP statistics that are based on the ANSD accepted annual review setting new undertakings; subsector meaning. spend identifiable in budget (UWS: including recurrent 7 See UCP. 2010. Rapport de la Revue Annuelle Conjointe subsidies); budget comprehensively covers domestic/donor du PEPAM. finance; standards and definitions used for household 8 The totals have been rounded up. surveys consistent with JMP; RWS/RSH: domestic/donor expenditure reported; UWS: audited accounts and balance 9 The CSO2 scorecard methodology and its structure are sheets from utilities; RWS/RSH: periodic analysis of equity detailed in the regional synthesis report. criteria by CSOs and government; UWS: pro-poor plans 10 World Bank Atlas Method. developed and implemented by utilities; RWS/UWS: 11 The relevant indicators are as follows. All subsectors: nationally consolidated reporting of output; RSH/USH: targets in the national water supply and sanitation monitoring of quantity and quality of uptake relative to program or the CSLP; subsector policies/strategies agreed promotion and subsidy efforts. 30 Water Supply and Sanitation in Senegal: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond See UCP. 2009. Rapport de la revue annuelle conjointe. 19 27 The main sources for this and the following two paragraphs: See UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Program. 2010. 20 UCP (2009, 2010) Rapports de la revue annuelle conjointe Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2010 Update. 2009 and 2010; and (2009) Rapport d’avancement du PEPAM; SONES, SDE (2009, 2010) presentation of the See UCP. 2010. Rapport de la revue annuelle conjointe, 21 annual activity reports during the joint sector review of 2009 April 2010. and 2010; interview with the SONES Planning Director. The Casamance Conflict has seen independence fighters 22 28 In practice, the fact that there have been no price increases wage low-level war against the government since the start since 2003 has led to this financial stability being eroded. of the 1980s. The area is still not totally secure today. 29 See Government of Senegal. 2009. Etude de la volonté Government of Senegal. 2010. Déclaration officielle pour 23 de payer les services d’eau potable et d’assainissement la Réunion de Haut Niveau, Initiative Assainissement et et prévision de la demande en eau potable et en services Eau pour Tous, Washington, April 23, 2010. d’assainissement sur le périmètre de l’hydraulique urbaine See UCP. 2009. Rapport de la revue annuelle conjointe, 24 – rapport d’enquête. This study shows that, in reality, the April 2009. social bracket benefits relatively richer households and See SONES. 2008. Etude de ciblages des pauvres dans les 25 that the poor fall into higher pricing brackets. branchements sociaux. 30 See Sanitation Directorate (DAS). 2010. Etude See UCP. 2010. Rapport de la revue annuelle conjointe, 26 institutionnelle sur le secteur de l’assainissement urbain April 2010. (version provisoire). 31 Notes For enquiries, contact: Water and Sanitation Program–Africa Region The World Bank, Upper Hill Road P.O. Box 30577, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +(254) 20 322 6300 E-mail: wspaf@worldbank.org Web site: www.wsp.org