Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Translated Document
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP
SENEGAL
WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR PROJECT - PSEA
DEPARTMENT OWAS
April 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... i
Project Summary……………………………………………………………………………… iii
Management’s report and recommendation to the board of directors concerning
the ADF loan and RWSS grant to senegal for the water and sanitation sector project 1
I- STRATEGIC THRUST AND RATIONALE .................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Linkages with Country Strategy and Objectives ............................................ 1
1.2 Rationale for Bank's Involvement ................................................................................. 1
1.3 Aid Coordination ......................................................................................................... … 2
II- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
2.1 Project Components .................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Technical Solutions Adopted and Alternatives Considered ........................................ 3
2.3 Project Type ................................................................................................................ 4
2.4 Project Cost and Financing Arrangements .................................................................. 6
2.5 Project Target Area and Beneficiaries ........................................................................ 6
2.6 Participatory Approach ............................................................................................... 6
2.7 Bank Group Experience and Lessons Reflected in Project Design ............................ 7
2.8 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................ 7
III- PROJECT FEASIBILITY ................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Financial and Economic Performance......................................................................... 8
3.2 Environmental and Social Impact ............................................................................... 8
Environment.................................................................................................................. 8
Climate Change............................................................................................................ 9
Gender.......................................................................................................................... 9
Social........................................................................................................................... 10
Involuntary Resettlement............................................................................................... 10
3.3 Sector Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................... 10
IV. IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................. 11
4.1 Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................ 11
4.2 Project Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................... 13
4.3 Governance.............................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 14
4.5 Risk Management .................................................................................................... 15
4.6 Knowledge Building ............................................................................................... 16
V- LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................. 16
5.1 Legal Instrument ..................................................................................................... 16
5.2 Conditions for Bank Intervention ....................................................................... 16
VI- RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................... 17
Annex 1: Comparative Socio-economic Indicators of Senegal…………………………… .......... I
Annex 2: Table of AfDB Portfolio in Senegal ................................................................................ II
Annex 3: Key Related Projects Financed by the Bank and Other Development Partnerss .......... III
Annex 4: Map of Project Area ........................................................................................................ IV
Annex 5 : Summary Presentation of Procurement procedures ..................................................... V
i
Currency Equivalents
(December 2013)
UA 1 = CFAF 740.68
Fiscal Year
1 January – 31 December Weights and Measures
1 ton (t) = 2,204 pounds 1 millimetre (mm) = 0. 03937 inch
1 kilogram (kg) = 2.204 pounds 1 kilometer (km) = 0.62 mile
1 meter (m) = 3.28 feet 1 hectare (ha) = 2.471 acres
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABEDA Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa
ADF African Development Fund
AFD French Development Agency
AfDB African Development Bank
ANSD National Agency for Statistics and Demography
ASUFOR Borehole Users’ Association
AWF African Water Facility
BTC Belgian Technical Cooperation
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DA Department of Sanitation
DEM Directorate of Operations and Maintenance
DGPRE Directorate of Management and Planning of Water Resources
DH Department of Hydraulics
DWS Drinking Water Supply
EA Executing Agencies
EIB European Investment Bank
EIG Economic Interest Grouping
IEC Information, Education and Communication
IGA Income Generating Activity
IsDB Islamic Development Bank
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MHA Ministry of Water and Sanitation
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OFOR Rural Boreholes Board
ONAS National Sanitation Board
PA Project Area
PEPAM Millennium Drinking Water and Sanitation Programme
PRSES Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Strengthening Plan
PSE Senegal Economic Emergence Plan
PSEA Water and Sanitation Sector Project
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RWSSI Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative
SNDES National Strategy for Economic and Social Development
UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women .
WB World Bank
WSS Water Supply and Sanitation
ii
LOAN INFORMATION
Client information
BORROWER/GRANTEE: Republic of Senegal
EXECUTING AGENCY: PEPAM Coordination Unit (PEPAM- CU)
Financing Plan
Source Amount (UA Million) Instrument
ADF 20 Loan
RWSSI 5.34 (EUR 6 million) Grant
Government 13.66 Counterpart
contribution
Beneficiaries 0.49 Contribution
TOTAL COST 39.49
Key AfDB Financial Information
ADF Loan Currency: Unit of Account (UA)
RWSSI Grant Currency : EUR
Description Rural Areas Urban Areas
Economic Analysis ERR : 34.53%
NPV : CFAF 29.16 billion
ERR : 23.08%
NPV: CFAF 12.85 billion
Financial Analysis FRR : 12.20%
NPV : CFA F 316 million
Timeline – Main Milestones (Expected)
Concept Note Approval
November 2013
Project Approval April 2014
Effectiveness July 2014
Completion July 2018
Last Disbursement December 2018
Last Reimbursement December 2054
iii
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Overview: The Water and Sanitation Sector Project (PSEA) is part of the Millennium
Drinking Water and Sanitation Programme (PEPAM), launched by Senegal in 2005, to ensure the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It comprises (i) a rural component designed to
improve access to drinking water supply and sanitation by the populations of the Louga, Kaffrine and
Tambacounda Regions, in continuation of the two previous Bank operations and (ii) an urban
component to rehabilitate and extend the Dakar and Ziguinchor sanitation networks. Furthermore, the
project will help improve the sector’s governance through: (i) the establishment of an appropriate
monitoring and evaluation mechanism; (ii) implementation of the action plan for integrated water
resources management; and (iii) support to privatized management of rural drinking water facilities. Its
implementation will span 4 years. Its total cost, excluding taxes and customs duties is estimated at UA
39.49 million.
2. The project’s direct beneficiaries are the rural populations of the Louga, Kaffrine and
Tambacounda Regions, estimated at 500,000 and the urban populations in the districts concerned in
Dakar and Ziguinchor, estimated at 250,000, thus representing a total of 750,000, 52% of whom are
women. In the project area, it will contribute towards: (i) improving the drinking water supply and
sanitation (DWSS) access rate; (ii) reducing by at least one half, cases of malaria and diarrheal
diseases; (iii) lowering health-related expenses; and (iv) creating approximately 5,000 temporary jobs
and 500 permanent jobs, of which 2,500 and 300 for women and youth.
3. Needs Assessment: The two previous Bank projects have helped improve rural drinking water
and sanitation access rates in the three target Regions (Louga, Kaffrine and Tambacounda). However,
wide access-rate disparities remain, with some Regions still showing rates of below 45% for drinking
water and 30% for sanitation, against a national average of 81.2% and 35.6%, respectively. In urban
areas, antiquated and inadequate sewage and storm water drainage systems account for the heavy wet
season floods recorded, that have claimed human lives and caused substantial property damage. In
September 2012, the Government organized a donor roundtable to support the funding of PEPAM’s
financing gap and implementation of the Emergency Phase of the Ten-Year Flood Control Programme,
targeting amongst others, the cities of Dakar and Ziguinchor. Furthermore, (i) the weakness of the
existing monitoring and evaluation system; (ii) the delay in implementing the Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) Action Plan and (iii) limited private sector involvement in the sub-
sector in rural areas constitute major constraints on the sector’s development.
4. Bank’s Added Value: The Bank was PEPAM’s lead donor in rural areas with the financing of
two operations (in 2005 and 2009). In 2001, it also funded the rehabilitation and extension of the
Cambérène waste water treatment station. It has played a lead role in attracting donors to the sector and
its experience from financing previous urban and rural projects is reflected in the design of the present
project. Its experience will also benefit the country by enhancing the sector’s monitoring and evaluation
system.
5. Knowledge Management: The PSEA and Sector monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to
be used will generate relevant information on the project’s impact and will permit proper overall
monitoring of PEPAM activities. The knowledge acquired will inform the Bank’s future operations.
iv
RESULTS-BASED LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL : Water and Sanitation Sector Project (PSEA)
Project Objective`0: To boost for the long term, access to drinking water and sanitation in rural (Louga, Kaffrine, and Tambacounda Regions) and urban (Dakar and Ziguinchor) areas
RESULTS CHAIN
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MOV
RISKS/
MITIGATION
MEASURES Indicator (including CSI) Baseline Target
Improved living conditions
for the Senegalese people
1. Access to drinking water (% rate)
2. Access to improved sanitation systems (% rate)
3. Poverty rate (%) 4. Prevalence of malaria (%)
5. Prevalence of diarrheal diseases (%)
1. 81.2% (rural) and 90.1%
(urban)
2. 35.6% (rural) and 62.4 % (urban)
in 2012
3. 46.7 % (national) in 2011 4. 3%. in 2013
5. 4.8% in 2013
1. 95% (rural) and 100% (urban) in 2025
2. 80% (rural) and 90% (urban) in 2025
3. 37.89 % (National) in 2018 4. 1.5 % in 2018
5. 2.16 % in 2018
Sources: SNDES
/ PES Information
System
ANSD reports
OU
TC
OM
E
Outcome 1: Improved
access to safe drinking
water and sanitation in
Louga, Kaffrine and
Tambacounda
1.1 Persons served by improved sources (including
women) 1.2 People with access to improved sanitation
(including women)
1.3 Rate of functionality of DWS systems (%)
1.1 4.26 million (2.22 million
women) 1.2 1.87 million (0.97 million
women)
1.3 95%
1.1 4. 41 million (2.29 million women)
in 2018 1.2 2.07 million (1.08 million women) in
2018
1.3 100% in 2018
Sources:
Reports from
MHA, ANSD,
project activity reports and annual
sector review.
National and
regional WASH surveys ASUFOR Statutes
and Rules and Regulations
Risks
- Delay in mobilizing national counterpart
contribution
- Delays in completing
sanitation works
- Imbalance of
operating accounts in
the sanitation sector
Mitigation Measures
- State’s firm
commitment to
financing sanitation (SNDES / PES)
Outcome 2: Improved
access to sanitation in
Dakar and Ziguinchor
2.1 Persons having access to connections and sanitation services (including women) (PEPAM)
2.2 Performance of sanitation networks (rate in %) (Volume of waste water collected and disposed
of against volume of waste water produced)
2.1 4.524 million (2.352 women)
2.2 Less than 40% in Dakar and
non-existent in Ziguinchor
2.1 4.774 million (2.482 million) in 2018
2.2 At least 60% in Dakar and at least
80% in Ziguinchor
Outcome 3: Improved
hygiene behaviour in the
project area
3.1. People making hand washing a habit (%) (including women)
3.1 Not available (to be collected via household surveys)
3.1 +125 000 (65 000 women) in 2018
v
Outcome 4: Improved
technical viability and
governance of the sector.
4.1 Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation
mechanism for the sector
4.2 Existing ASUFOR having delegated
production and operation to the private sector
(in %)
4.3 Percentage of women in positions of
responsibility in ASUFOR
4.1 0
4.2 0
4.3 30%
4.1 1 M&E mechanism in 2018
4.2 66% in 2018
4.3 50 %
ASUFOR Statutes and Rules and
Regulations
-Establishment of a mechanism to monitor
and mobilize the
counterpart contribution (SNFO /
PEPAM-CU)
- Better targeting of
businesses by keeping
a list of efficient
contractors
-Review of ONAS financial model
OU
TC
OM
ES
Component A
1. Rural DWSS and urban sanitation infrastructure
provided .
Component B
2.1 Support to IWRM
2.2 Support to sector reform
2.3 Strengthening sector M&E
2.4 Capacity building for
women and stakeholders
1.1 Number of boreholes
1.2. Number of water supply systems
1.3. Number of water supply systems rehabilitated
1.4. Urban sanitation networks (ml)
1.5. Number of pumping stations
1.6. Number of wastewater treatment plants
1.7. Number of household connections
1.8. Number of household latrines and public
toilets
1.9 Number of jobs (including for women)
2.1 Studies on the IWRM
2.2 Studies on sector reform
2.3 Strengthening M & E
2.4 Number of female community workers trained
1.1. 0
1.2. 0
1.3. 0
1.4. 0
1.5. 0
1.6. 0
1.7 0
1.8 0
1.9 0
2.1 0
2.2 0
2.3 0
2.4 0
1.1 20
1.2 20
1.3 10
1.4 23 km in Dakar (including 3 km in
the stormwater network), 22 km in
Ziguinchor
1.5 1 in Dakar, 1 in Ziguinchor
1.6 1 in Ziguinchor
1.7 7 250
1.8 17 000 household latrines and 40
public toilets
1.9 5000 temporary and 500 permanent
(respectively 2500 and 300, women)
2.1. Studies validated (water management
plans, hydrogeological and hydrological studies)
2.2 Studies on sector reform validated
2.3 The 14 sector M & E actions implemented
2.4 150 female community workers trained
Sources:
Reports from
MHA, EDS, project activity
reports
PEPAM’s annual
sector review
Bank’s
supervision
mission reports
Risk
- Delays due to poor
performances of construction
contractors;
Mitigation Measures
- Raising level of selection criteria in
competitive bidding
and efficient procurement
allotments.
vi
COMPONENTS
KE
Y A
CT
IVIT
IÉS
COMPONENT A : Infrastructure Development: UA 28.68 million
COMPONENT B : Institutional and Reform Support: UA 7.57 million
COMPONENT C : Project Management: UA 2.57 million
Total Project Cost UA 39.49 million
ADF LOAN: UA 20.0 million Government : UA 13.66 million
RWSSI GRANT: UA 5.34 million Beneficiaries : UA 0.49 million
Project Implementation Schedule
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Activities / Months T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
PRIOR TO START-UP
Board Presentation /Approval
Publication of General Procurement Notice
Signature of Protocol and Loan Agreements
Effectiveness
Conditions Precedent to 1st Disbursement
Launching Mission
RURAL DWS
Procurement
Execution of Works
Works supervision and Inspection
RURAL SANITATION
Procurement
Execution of Works
Works Supervision and Inspection
URBAN SANITATION
Procurement for Dakar
Execution of Works for Dakar
Works Supervision and Inspection for Dakar
Procurement for Ziguinchor
Execution of Works for Ziguinchor
Works Supervision and Inspection for Ziguinchor
INFORM. EDUC. COMMUNIC. (IEC)
Procurement
Information, Education and Information
Activities
vii
IWRM ACTIVITES
Procurement
PMU Management Plan of basins (BA and BS)
Hydrogeological and Hydrological Studies (VS and CT)
Popularization of Instruments and Training
SECTOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Procurement
Study and Establishment of Sector Monitoring and Evaluation
REFORM SUPPORT
Miscellaneous Activities
PROJECT COORDINATION AND MONITORING
Procurement
Institutional Support
Project Coordination and Monitoring
ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AUDIT
COMPLETION REPORT
Preliminary
Activities
Works
Miscellaneous
Activities
Project Accounts Audit
Procurement
Supervision
Project Monitoring
1
MANAGEMENT’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS CONCERNING THE ADF LOAN AND RWSSI GRANT TO SENEGAL
FOR THE WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR PROJECT
Management submits the following report and recommendation on a proposed ADF loan of UA 20
million and RWSSI grant of UA 5.34 million to the Republic of Senegal to finance the Water and
Sanitation Sector Programme.
I Strategic Thrust and Rationale
1.1 Project Linkages with Country Strategy and Objectives
1.1.1 The Water and Sanitation Sector Project (PSEA) is designed to improve the living conditions
of the Senegalese people. It is fully in line with the objectives and thrusts of Senegal’s Economic
Emergence Plan (PSE) under the National Economic and Social Development Strategy (SNDES
2013-2017), adopted on 8 November 2012, notably as concerns Thrust 2 "Human Capital, Social
Protection and Sustainable Development", and Thrust 3 "Governance, Institutions, Peace and
Security" (see paragraph A.1 of technical Annexes).
1.1.2 The PSEA is consistent with the Bank’s intervention strategy in the country (Country Strategy
Paper, CSP 2010-2015), as revised in April 2013, in particular its Pillar 2 "Management of Natural
Resources (including water) and Resilience”. It is fully consistent with the Bank’s Ten-Year
Strategy (2013-2022) and its new Gender Strategy (2014-2018). It does contribute towards
achieving two major objectives of the Ten-Year Strategy by addressing three of its five operational
priorities, notably infrastructure development, improved governance and support to private
sector development. In terms of gender, the project is in line with Pillar 2 of the Strategy, namely
"Economic Empowerment". Indeed, in addition to access to drinking water and sanitation services,
it will contribute towards (i) strengthening women’s involvement in the management of the public
drinking water service in rural areas, (ii) creating jobs for women and youth, and (iii) training on
Information, Education and Communication (IEC). Lastly, the project is consistent with (i) the
strategy of the Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative (RWSSI), (ii) the Bank’s
urban development strategy and (iii) the Integrated Water Resources Management policy.
1.2 Rationale for Bank’s Involvement
1.2.1 With the implementation of PEPAM, the country has made great strides in rural drinking
water supply access, whose rate rose from 69.5 % in 2006 to 81.2% in 2012. However, wide intra-
regional access-rate disparities remain, including where the Bank’s first two sub-programmes were
undertaken. Some yet unreached districts (départements) in the said Regions still show low rates of
access to safe drinking water and sanitation services, standing at below 45% and 30% respectively,
as against a national average of 81.2 % for water and 35.6 % for sanitation. This project will
contribute towards correcting such disparities (A.5 Technical Annexes).
1.2.2 In the wet season, Dakar and Ziguinchor witness heavy rains which heighten the poor
sanitation as well as flood intensity and frequency, causing loss of human lives and significant
property damage. This situation, which in the past led to riots, is due to an antiquated and deficient
sewage and stormwater drainage network that is extremely dysfunctional.
2
With the ongoing densification and extension of drinking water supply networks in Ziguinchor, the
rehabilitation/extension of sewerage networks has become a priority.
1.2.3 In terms of sector governance, the continued implementation of the Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) Action Plan developed by Senegal since 2004 remains a priority,
for: (i) ensuring enhanced knowledge of water resources; (ii) adequate catering for the country’s
water needs; and (iii) making proposals for integrated and sustainable management of resources.
Additionally, despite all the progress achieved with the advent of PEPAM in 2005, the sector’s
current monitoring and evaluation system remains partial, disparate and insufficiently
institutionalized. Data on DWSS, hygiene-related behaviours, water resources and sector efficiency
remain unreliable, insufficiently disaggregated and incomplete (A.5.6 Technical Annexes). These
weaknesses hinder investment planning and good governance in the sector. Moreover, they
constrain the implementation of ongoing reforms, notably in terms of public-private partnership.
The PSEA will contribute towards removing these two major constraints.
1.3 Aid Coordination
1.3.1 The sector’s leading donors are ADB, World Bank, EU, AFD, JICA, BOAD and Belgian
Technical Cooperation. Their positioning by sub-sector (rural and urban) is an appropriate approach
to meet the numerous needs and balance financing (see paragraph A.7 of the Technical Annexes).
The Bank plays a key role in the sector, mainly in the rural sub-sector. With the opening of the
country office, the Bank has enhanced its role in sector dialogue.
Table 1.3 : Aid Coordination
*The percentages represent the respective shares of each donor in the overall amount of UA 623. 8 Million
1.3.2 Donor coordination is done through PEPAM, a unified framework for intervention in the
sector. Annual reviews are held to provide updates on the programme’s implementation status and
synergize the actions of technical and financial partners. Such coordination is reinforced by the
establishment of the Consultative Group of donors with an urban and a rural platform to facilitate
internal dialogue and ensure better articulation of interventions in the sector.
Sector or sub-sector*
Scope*
GDP Exports Labour
Drinking Water and Sanitation NA NA NA
Stakeholders – Public Expenditure Over the Period 2005 -2012
Government Donors Percentage (%)
UA 102.4 million
14.4 %
UA 623.8 million
85.6 %
AfDB 15 %
IDA 11%
EU 10 %
JICA 8 %
AFD 6%
BOAD 5%
Level of Aid Coordination
Existence of thematic working groups Yes
Existence of a global sector programme Yes
Role of AfDB in aid coordination * Member
3
In terms of monitoring and evaluation, sector coordination among key development partners will be
revitalized around the sector’s Monitoring and Evaluation Enhancement Plan (PRSES 2013-2017),
resulting from the workshop organized by the Bank during the PSEA appraisal mission. The Bank
will provide leadership in the Plan’s implementation process (see A.5.6 of the Technical Annexes).
II. Project Description
2.1 Project Components
Table 2.1.1: Project Components
2.2 Technical Solutions Adopted and Alternatives Considered
2.2.1 For the rural component, the technical solutions adopted are those used under PEPAM. For
the urban component, technical solutions are based on sanitation master plans financed by EIB and
AWF, for Dakar and Ziguinchor respectively.
2.2.2 For the rural component, the technical solutions are similar to those used in the two Bank-
financed rural DWSS sub-programmes.
Component
Name
Cost Estimate
(UA million)
Description of Components
A Development of
DWS and
Sanitation
Infrastructure
16.75
(42.4 %)
11.93
(30.2 %)
This component comprises two sub-components:
1. Rural DWS and Sanitation Infrastructure, including Supervision: (i)
Drilling of 20 boreholes; (ii) Drilling/Rehabilitation of 30 multi-village
DWSS systems; (iii) Extension of water supply systems; (iv) Building
of 17,000 household latrines and 40 public toilets; (v) Provision of
7,250 individual connections; and (v) Works supervision and
monitoring.
2. Urban Sanitation Infrastructure, including Supervision: (i) Renewal
of 20 km of network; (ii) Extension of 3 km of sewerage networks; (iii)
Construction of 22 km of new sewerage networks; (iv) Construction of
2 pumping stations and two sewage treatment plants; (ii) Works
supervision and monitoring.
B Institutional and
Reform Support
7.57
(19.2 %)
This component comprises:
(i) IEC in rural and urban areas; (ii) Support to rural and urban reform; (iii)
Support to IWRM implementation; (iv) Enhancement of the sector’s
monitoring and evaluation system; (v) Gender and social ; (vi) Capacity
building for women and stakeholders; and (vii) technical support to the
executing agencies.
C PSEA Management 2.57
(6.7 %)
This component comprises all the administrative and financial management
activities of the sub-project, namely: (i) Support to the functioning of the
PEPAM coordination unit and executing agencies; (ii) Technical and financial
monitoring of the project; (iii) Project monitoring and evaluation; (iv) Project
auditing; and (iv) Studies and monitoring of environmental aspects of the
PSEA.
Resettlement Action
Plan (RAP)
0.67
(1.7 %)
The preparation of the abridged RAP follows encroachment by the Ziguinchor
treatment plant on some farmlands.
4
For the DWS, they consist in the construction/rehabilitation of multi-village systems, comprising
boreholes, water towers and pumping equipment with the extension of networks to villages that are
far between and providing individual connections and standpipes. The options of drilling boreholes
by locality and human-powered water pumps were ruled out given the excessive cost of the former
and the ineffectiveness of the latter. For sanitation, the options consist in providing household
latrines and public toilets at public centres, with priority to health centres and schools. The use of
sewerage networks and mini-networks was not considered appropriate given the low volume of
water consumed.
2.2.3 Regarding sanitation in Dakar, the decision was taken to replace the antiquated networks
and construct new networks to enable people to connect to the existing public system. Additionally,
the wastewater pumping capacity will be strengthened with the construction of a new pumping
station. In targeted neighborhoods, semi-offsite sanitation is more suitable than on-site sanitation
systems due to the existence of the sewerage network.
2.2.4 The Ziguinchor Sanitation Master Plan (PDAZ) is based, inter alia on: (i) the construction
of on-site sewer disposal systems in difficult-access areas; and (ii) the choice of off-site and semi-
offsite sanitation in areas where technical conditions are conducive to the connection of wastewater
networks to a treatment plant (WWTP). Given the favourable technical conditions (accessibility,
housing type, etc.) in the targeted areas, this project has opted for the off-site sanitation system.
2.3 Project Type
The PSEA was designed as a standalone investment operation.
2.4 Project Cost and Financing Arrangements
2.4.1 The total cost of the PSEA, net of tax, is estimated at UA 39.49 million of which UA 20.57
million in foreign exchange (52%) and UA 18.92 million in local currency (48%). This estimate is
based on the unit price of recent projects and includes 5% and 3% provisions for physical
contingencies and a price escalation, respectively. Detailed cost tables are shown at B.2 of the
Annexes.
5
Table 2.4.1: Project Cost Estimate by Component
Table 2.3.2: Sources of Financing [in UA million]
Sources of Financing Total Cost % total
ADF 20.00 50.65
RWSSI Fund 5.34 13.91
Government 13.66 34.20
Beneficiaries 0.49 1.24
TOTAL COST 39.49 100.00
2.4.2 The Project will be financed by (i) an ADF loan of UA 20 million ( 50.65 % of total cost );
(ii) an RWSSI grant of UA 5.34 million (13.91 % of total); (iii) the Government to the tune of UA
13.66 million (34.20 % of total); and (iv) Beneficiaries to the tune of UA 0.49 million (0.84% of
total). The ADF will finance 57 % of the cost of urban sanitation activities, 32 % of the cost of rural
activities and the entire project management cost. The RWSSI fund will co-finance: (i) the
construction of household latrines, public toilets and private connections; (ii) rural works
supervision and IEC; (iii) Support to the establishment of monitoring and evaluation of the sector
and reforms; and (iv) training of women and sector stakeholders. The Government’s contribution
will partially finance the Infrastructure Development and the Institutional and Reform Support
components as well as all costs related to compensation for the construction of the Ziguinchor
treatment station. The beneficiaries will contribute only to the financing of household latrines and
individual connections. The breakdown of financing by activity is given in paragraph B2 of the
Technical Annexes.
Components UA Million
% in FE FE Cost LC Cost Total Cost
A. Infrastructure Development
Rural DWSS infrastructure 9.24 6.27 15.51 60
Urban sanitation infrastructure 7.19 3.86 11.05 65
B. Institutional and Reform Support
Support to IWRM 0.22 1.24 1.46 15
Support to rural reform 0.05 0.57 0.62 8
Support to urban reform 0.03 0.35 0.38 8
IEC, Gender, sector M & E, Environment 1.58 2.36 3.94 40
Support to executing agencies and stakeholders 0.12 0.49 0.61 2
C. Project Management
Project management 0.61 1.63 2.24 27
Implementation of ESMP 0.01 0.13 0.14 10
Total Base Cost 19.05 16.90 35.94 53
Physical and Financial Contingencies 1.52 1.35 2.88
Total Cost 20.57 18.25 38.82
Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) 0.67 0.67
TOTAL COST 20.57 18.92 39.49 52
6
Table 2.4.3: Project Cost by Expenditure Category
Expenditure Category UA Million
% in FE FE Cost LC Cost Total Cost
GOODS 0.79 1.01 1.80 43.75
WORKS 15.18 10.12 25.30 60.00
SERVICES 4.54 4.67 9.21 49.17
OPERATION 2.48 2.48 0.00
Total Cost, including Contingencies 20.51 18.28 38.8 52.84
Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) 0.67 0.67 0.00
TOTAL COST 20.51 18.98 39.49
Table 2.4.4 Expenditure Schedule by Component (UA million)
Components 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
A. Infrastructure Development
5.25 10.59 7.69 4.91
B. Institutional and Reform Support 0.078 2.74 2.81 1.29 0.93
C. Project Management 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Resettlement Action Plan (RAP 0.67
Total Cost 1.25 8.50 13.90 9.49 6.35
2.5 Project Target Area and Beneficiaries
The project covers the Louga, Kaffrine and Tambacounda Regions for rural DWSS and for urban
sanitation the cities of Dakar and Ziguinchor. The direct beneficiaries of the project are 500,000
people in rural areas and 250,000 people in urban areas, representing a total of 750,000 people of
whom 52 % are women. The main project outcomes are:
(i) improved DWSS access rate , (ii) reduction by at least 50% of malaria and 55% of diarrheal
disease cases, (iii) lower health expenditure; (iv) creation of over 5,000 temporary jobs and 500
permanent jobs for women and youth.
2.6 Participatory Approach during Project Identification, Design and Implementation,
including by the Private Sector and Civil Society
2.6.1 A participatory process was used throughout the project formulation, notably during (i) the
development of local water and sanitation plans by rural communities; (ii) the conduct of the rural
component studies in the three Regions; and (iii) updating of the Dakar and Ziguinchor sanitation
master plans. At all these stages, the populations were consulted on the proposed technical
solutions. In preparation and appraisal missions important work sessions were held with the
beneficiaries, which helped secure their support for the project but also identified capacity building
actions based on needs expressed by households, local authorities, Rural Borehole Users
Associations (ASUFOR ) and women's and youth associations. Regarding sector monitoring and
evaluation, consultations were held with the various project executing agencies, the Coordination
Unit and development partners. They enabled (i) preparation of a detailed status report with an
analysis of key gaps and priority needs; and (ii) the holding, on the sidelines of the appraisal
mission, of an information sharing workshop involving all the sector stakeholders to define the
Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Enhancement Plan (PRSES 2013-2017).
7
2.6.2 Concerning of the Ziguinchor wastewater treatment plant which will affect some rice
farms, public consultations were held at the commune with the affected communities, NGOs and
elected officials through which their support for and participation in the project were secured. The
participatory approach will be maintained at all stages of the implementation of PSEA activities.
Community volunteers will be identified to report on project activities.
2.7 Bank Group Experience and Lessons Reflected in Project Design
2.7.1 The performance of the Bank's portfolio in the country is deemed satisfactory with an
overall rating of 2.49 in 2012, up from 2.01 in 2009. Regarding the DWSS sector, the last two
Bank-financed operations under PEPAM performed satisfactorily. The first sub-programme,
approved in 2005 was closed in 2010, exceeding set targets. The second one approved in 2009,
shows a physical implementation rate of 90 % for a disbursement rate of 75%. Its closing date is 31
December 2014.
2.7.2 However, the various portfolio reviews have highlighted the major constraints on the
implementation of projects in the country, namely: (i) unavailability of technical studies prior to
appraisal; (ii) the absence of a common approach to IEC in the DWSS sector to facilitate
sensitization and make it effective; (iii) the poor performance of rural sanitation SMEs; and (iv) a
weak DWSS monitoring and evaluation system. The design of this operation has reflected these
lessons through: (i) the availability of recent technical studies; (ii) adoption of a common approach
to IEC; (iii) preparation of a list of companies selected on the basis of their performance in the last
two operations; and (iv) financing of capacity building activities for the establishment of an
appropriate monitoring and evaluation system.
2.8 Key Performance Indicators
2.8.1 To monitor the project, the current monitoring and evaluation system of PEPAM-CU will
be used by the M&E expert who will work with the Executing Agencies. The performance
indicators selected are: (i) number of boreholes drilled; (ii) number of multi-village water supply
systems provided; (iii) number of household latrines constructed; (iv) number of rural individual
connections; (v) number of urban pumping stations and treatment plants built; (vi) length of urban
sanitation networks provided; (vii) number of permanent jobs created; (viii) number of female
community volunteers trained; (ix) number of studies validated and actions implemented under the
various sector support programmes (IWRM, Reforms, sector Monitoring and Evaluation, etc. ) .
8
III. Project Feasibility
3.1 Economic and Financial Performance
Table 3.1 : Key economic data
ERR: Rate of return NPV: Net Present Value
3.1.1 The costs used to calculate economic profitability are those relating to investment costs,
excluding taxes and provision for price increases as well as maintenance costs and other operating
expenses. The key economic benefits are: (i) the economic value of the additional volume of water
produced; (ii) health-related budget savings of beneficiaries due to lower prevalence of waterborne
diseases; (iii) education budget savings due to fewer health-related school failures; (iv) temporary
and permanent jobs created during the construction of the facilities; and (v) savings on the water-
fetching time which is used gainfully. On this basis, the economic rate of return of the project’s
rural component is estimated at 34.53%, while that of the urban component stands at 23.08% with
Net Present Values (NPV) of CFAF 29.16 billion and CFAF 12.85 billion respectively. These rates
surpass the opportunity cost of capital estimated at 10%. Therefore, the project is economically
viable (see Annex B7).
3.1.2 The project’s EIRR sensitivity was analyzed in relation to: (i) 10% increase in investment
costs; (ii) 10% reduction in health-related benefits; (iii) 10% decrease in terms of time saved; and
(iv) 10% decrease in flood-mitigation benefits. For each of these assumptions, the internal rate of
return remained higher than the opportunity cost of capital and the NPV remained positive. Indeed,
the EIRR ranged from 34.53% to 34.11% for rural areas and 23.08% to 13.07% for urban areas,
while the NPV remained positive ranging from CFAF 29.16 billion to CFAF 28.37 billion francs
for rural areas and from CFAF 12.85 billion to CFAF 12.84 billion for urban areas.
3.2 Environmental and Social Impact
3.2.1 The project is classified in Category 2 under the Bank’s environmental classification given
its significant contribution towards improving the living conditions of people who will henceforth
enjoy improved access to drinking water and sanitation. A strategic environmental assessment of
the project was conducted leading to the development of an Environmental and Social Management
Plan (ESMP). Besides the piping, the Ziguinchor sanitation component comprises a pumping station
and a lagooning plant which were the subject of a comprehensive environmental and social
assessment (CESA) validated by the authorized services of the country. Based on the findings of the
CESA, the project appraisal mission proposed the development of an abridged Resettlement Action
Plan (abridged RAP) in accordance with the Bank’s safeguard policies to specifically address the
encroachment of the treatment plant on some farmland located within its easement. Summaries of
the strategic environmental assessment as well as the abridged RAP have been validated and posted
on the Bank’s website.
Description Rural Areas Urban Areas
Economic Analysis ERR : 34.53%
NPV : CFAF 29.16 billion
TRE : 23.08
NPV : CFAF 12.85 billion
9
3.2.2 The project will have significant positive impacts on the environment concerning: (i)
improved quality of life of populations; (ii) increased public awareness of hygiene and management
of DWSS facilities; (iii) better protection of sanitation facilities; and (iv) improved water resources
management
3.2.3 Its negative impacts associated with the construction phase are notably: (i) constraints to
mobility; (ii) noise and dust raised by vehicles; and (iii) risk of accidents. (See Section B.8 of
Technical Annexes). These negative impacts are easily mitigated by the ESMP measures (see
details in paragraph B.8 of the Technical Annexes).
3.2.4 The total cost of the ESMP is estimated at UA 0.142 million. It will be implemented in
conjunction with all stakeholders. The project will sign an agreement with the Department of the
Environment and will be assisted in the Regions by the Regional Divisions of the Environment and
Classified Establishments (DREEC) located in its area of intervention. The latter will carry out the
environmental monitoring.
Climate Change
3.2.5 Key Issues: The main issues identified are irregular recharge of groundwater due to rainfall
disruption, water quality and flooding.
3.2.6 Mitigation: The project includes studies on IWRM for better knowledge of resources and
establishment of a water resources and quality monitoring mechanism. Sewerage networks will be
put in place and the separation of "sewage" and “rainwater" networks will facilitate stormwater
drainage.
Gender
3.2.7 A detailed analysis of the socio-economic and Gender situation is presented in Annex B8.2. In
its design, the project paid special attention to increasing women’s representation in decision-
making within the borehole users’ association (ASUFOR), which is among the crucial elements of
the management of the rural drinking water service. In the various ASUFORs that will be set up for
the management of boreholes drilled under the project, women will occupy at least 50 % of
management positions, against a national average currently estimated at 30 %. To ensure their
effective participation in these bodies, the project will finance specific training cycles for them as
well as for youth on administrative, technical, financial and accounting management of rural
drinking water and sanitation facilities. In view of the transfer of maintenance and construction of
rural motorized boreholes to the private sector, these actions will foster future involvement of
women and youth in this sector. Additionally, the project will have an impact on (i) improving
women's income with the recruitment and training of 150 female community workers responsible
for IEC activities and (ii) improving the attendance rates of young people with the reduction of the
time devoted to fetching water. For better monitoring, the programme will strengthen IEC activities
and involve the Ministry in charge of Women and Gender.
10
3.2.8 In urban areas, capacity building is planned for associations and for women’s and youths’
Economic Interest Groupings (EIG) on solid waste collection, conveyance and management. An
NGO or specialized IEC firm will be hired for this purpose. The support will cover training in IEC
and maintenance of facilities, equipment and materials (wheelbarrows, brooms, shovels,
motorcycles, bicycles, gloves, boots, shovels, mufflers, rakes, etc.), to enable the associations and
EIGs to better raise public awareness on the protection of the works and to ensure their
sustainability in Dakar and Ziguinchor. Community leaders will be sensitized on hygiene and
trained on gender issues.
Social
3.2.9 Besides providing sufficient water, the project will benefit health, education and
employment. It will gradually decrease malaria prevalence from 3% to 1.5%. It will also help
reduce the prevalence of certain diseases such as diarrhea and typhoid. The prevalence of these
diseases in the project area is respectively 4.8% and 3.8%. The project is expected to create 5,000
temporary jobs (3,000 rural and 2,000 urban) and 500 permanent jobs (300 urban and 200 rural),
with average monthly salaries of CFAF 70 000 and CFAF 60,000 respectively.
Involuntary Resettlement
3.2.10 The Ziguinchor priority sanitation programme will entail small-scale resettlement (less
than 200). The treatment plant south of the city, within the limits of the municipality (commune),
may encroach on farmland most of which has been abandoned. An abridged RAP will be developed
by the Senegalese party and approved by the Bank. It will take into account compensation in
accordance with the country’s regulations and the Bank’s environmental and social protection
policies.
3.3. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation
3.3.1. The inadequacy of the sector’s monitoring and evaluation system referred to in paragraph
1.2.3 needs to be corrected to ensure the availability of reliable, timely and sufficiently
disaggregated data and foster efficient investment planning as well as information and good
governance in the sector. This will be done through the support provided for under PSEA but also
through coordination with other development partners on the Sector Monitoring and Evaluation
Enhancement Plan (PRSES 2013-2017).
3.3.2 Specific support of this project includes 14 actions from PRSES 2013-2017. These focus
on : (i) the definition/update of performance and outcome indicators for the sector; (ii) capacity
building for data collection, processing and storage at the central and decentralized levels (with, for
instance national and regional WASH surveys among households in collaboration with the National
Statistics and Demography Agency); (iii) harmonization and integration of sub-systems and
databases managed by different actors in a centralized monitoring and evaluation system (e.g.
within the framework for the establishment at DGPRE of the Integrated System of information on
Water );
11
(iv) development of information from monitoring and evaluation of the sector through support to
sector reviews and an impact assessment study (impact of drinking water and sanitation services on
health, education, employment, etc.).
3.3.3 The main outcomes expected from these actions are: (i) enhanced monitoring and
evaluation capacity of decentralized institutional structures (EAs); (ii) better coverage of rural areas;
(iii) more regular supply of information on sanitation and hygiene practices; and (iv) improved
collaboration between the Ministry responsible for the sector (MHA) and the National Statistics and
Demography Agency (ANSD) on data collection. (See paragraphs A.5.6 and A.8 Technical
Annexes).
IV. Implementation
4.1 Implementation Arrangements
4.1.1 Like the two Bank-financed sub-programs, the various PSEA components will be
implemented under PEPAM, through the PEPAM Coordination Unit (PEPAM-CU) which will
carry out the coordination as well as the administrative and financial management of the project,
monitoring of cross-cutting issues and steering of the monitoring and evaluation of the sector. The
Department of Economic and Financial Cooperation (DCEF) and the Investment Department (DI)
will monitor the financial execution of the project (See paragraph B.3 Technical Annexes).
4.1.2 The Water Resources Department (DH) and the Operations and Maintenance Department
(DEM) will be Project Owners for the drinking water component. The Sanitation Department (DA)
will be Project Owner for the rural sanitation component. The National Sanitation Authority
(ONAS) will be Project Owner for the urban sanitation component (Dakar and Ziguinchor). The
Water Resources Management and Planning Department (DGPRE) is responsible for activities and
studies on IWRM. At regional level, the implementation of the PSEA will be supported by
decentralized services of the sector. The evaluation of the coordinating body and the various
executing agencies (see paragraph B5.3 of the Technical Annexes) concluded that the experience
and performance of these structures in project management are satisfactory. Projects are completed
on schedule. Furthermore, sub-annual interim and annual financial statements are produced on time
and have been certified by the auditors without qualification. The Government will undertake to
maintain the current staff of PEPAM - CU.
4.1.3 Steering Committee: The existing PEPAM Steering Committee will ensure articulation
between activities under the project and the actions of other PEPAM components as well as
consistency with sector policies. This Steering Committee will coordinate all project stakeholders
(central and decentralized, civil society, local communities, private sector, consumer associations,
NGOs, etc.). At the regional level, the project will provide support for the establishment of
platforms for dialogue as well as for monitoring and evaluation.
12
4.1.4 Goods and Services Procurement Procedures: Procurements financed from Bank
resources will be done in accordance with national procedures for national competitive bidding
(Goods and Works), pursuant to Decree No. 2011-1048 of 27 July 2011 on the procurement code.
This provision follows the conclusions of the assessment of Senegal’s national procurement
procedures, conducted by the Bank in March 2010.
4.1.5 Procurements will comply with the Bank’s Rules and Procedures (May 2008 edition,
revised in July 2012) and will use the Bank’s standard documents for international competitive
bidding (goods and works) and recruitment of consultants through short listing. The General
Procurement Plan (GPP) has been prepared for a period of 18 months, according to a Bank model.
The details and GPP are presented in the Technical Annexes (B.5). A summary of the procurement
terms and conditions is also given in Annex 5 of this report.
4.1.6 Financial Management: The financial management system (budget, accounting policy
and procedures, internal control, financial reporting, disbursements and flow of funds and external
audit) used satisfactorily for the management of previous sub-programs of the Bank will be
maintained for the implementation of PSEA. Thus, the PEPAM-CU will be responsible for financial
management with qualified, competent and experienced personnel. The annual financial statements
including a balance sheet and an income and expenditure table will be developed from the
accounting software in place, based on the accounting standards and principles of the OHADA
accounting system. During the year, progress reports will be produced quarterly (within 45 days of
the end of the quarter), including budget execution reports. PEPAM- CU will process all the
accounts and it will systematically receive accounting records from the executing agencies.
However, the procedures manual will be updated to include new PSEA activities.
4.1.7 Disbursements: The main methods of disbursement of Bank resources will be
reimbursement, direct payment and revolving fund. The disbursement letter and the
training/retraining of staff at the launch the project will specify how these disbursement methods
will operate. To operationalize the revolving fund, two special accounts operating under the
signature of the Director of Investment or his representative will be created, including one for the
ADF loan and the other for the RWSSI grant. Additionally, two sub-accounts operating with the
joint signatures of the Coordinator and the Administrative and Financial Manager (AFM) of
PEPAM, receiving resources from special accounts will be created to settle some of the expenditure
eligible for the revolving fund. Counterpart resources will be included in the Consolidated
Investment Budget (CIB) and mobilized in time for the financing of project activities. Regional
accounts will be opened in private banks to collect contributions from the project beneficiaries. All
these accounts will operate with the joint signatures of the Coordinator and the AFM.
4.1.8 Financial and Accounting Audit: To meet the requirements of controlling the use of
project resources, an annual financial audit will be conducted throughout the project duration by an
independent audit firm selected through competitive bidding. The terms of reference of the audit
will be subject to prior approval by the Bank. The audit cost shall be financed from Bank resources.
The accounting audit report should reach the Bank within six months of closure of the fiscal year.
The auditor recruitment process shall begin within six months of the Project launch.
13
4.2 Project Monitoring
4.2.1 PEPAM – CU will be responsible for project monitoring and shall prepare quarterly progress
reports, using Bank formats, on the status of the physical and financial implementation of the
project. The project outputs will be monitored through the indicators identified in the logical
framework. The monitoring and evaluation expert of PEPAM – CU, will monitor all activities, on
the basis of the mechanism already in place and in collaboration with the focal points of the
executing agencies. Ministries that are members of the Steering Committee will also be expected to
conduct regular monitoring of outputs. Furthermore, under IEC, documents (photos, documentaries,
etc.) will be prepared regularly during the different phases of the project (before, during and after
construction) to ensure good visibility of actions. The country office will follow up and maintain
dialogue on sector policy and governance.
4.2.2 At the Bank, the project will be monitored through: (i) semi-annual supervision missions;
(ii) quarterly progress reports submitted by the PEPAM – CU; and (iii) annual audit reports to be
submitted by the PEPAM – CU no more than six months of the end of each fiscal year.
4.2.3 The project implementation milestones are given below:
Table 4.2.1: Implementation Milestones
4.3 Governance
4.3.1 The national economic and fiduciary environment does not pose any significant risk. The
national procurement system and procedures are largely compliant with international standards.
Control institutions (Audit Court, General State Inspectorate and National Anti-Corruption
Authority-OFNAC) exist and regularly produce public finance management reports. The
involvement of relevant State entities and different executing agencies in the management of
projects augur well for leadership and management. The Investment Department (DI) of the
Ministry of Finance is responsible for disbursements and participates annually in the Bank’s
portfolio review where financial management issues are addressed.
4.3.2 However, the sector’s good governance still hinges on the continuation and completion of
reforms initiated in 1996 by the Government and reaffirmed with the advent of PEPAM in 2005.
Indeed, in a bid to improve the service quality of rural drinking water supply, the key measures
envisaged are: (i) delegation of maintenance and production services to the private sector;
Period Milestones Monitoring Activities / Feedback Loop
04/2014 Loan/Grant Approval AfDB/ ADF Board
07/2014 Loan/Grant Effectiveness Signature of Grant Agreement and Non-objection of ADF
08/2014 Satisfaction of 1st disbursement conditions Non- Objection by ADF/Launching Mission
05/2015 Establishment of control firm and IEC firm Non-Objection by ADF and Contracts signed
07/2015 Start of works Non-Objection by ADF and Contracts signed
04/2015 Start of studies on reforms Non-Objection by ADF and Contracts signed
07/2015 Start of studies on IWRM Non-Objection by ADF and Contracts signed
03/2016 Validation of studies Validation workshops
04/2018 End of works Works completion reports, Missions
14
(ii) establishment of a public body to organize the maintenance of rural water infrastructure, see to
the management of rural water supply facilities and organize support and advice to operators; and
(iii) establishment of a regulatory mechanism. In this connection, the country has been divided into
three zones (North, Central and South) for the transfer to private operators of drinking water
production activities and maintenance of facilities. The process of choosing operators for the
Central zone is ongoing with the support of the World Bank. PSEA will support this reform with the
finalization of the framework for concession of a public service (PSC) for the South zone and
support to the establishment of the rural boreholes Authority (OFOR).
4.3.3. Furthermore, the limited availability of reliable, timely and sufficiently disaggregated data
on important aspects such as: water quality, gender, access to sanitation, hygiene-related behavior
affect governance of the sector. The actions planned by the Bank, in coordination with the
Government and other development partners within the context of the 2013-2017 PRSES contribute
towards establishing an efficient monitoring and evaluation system.
4.4 Sustainability
4.4.1 The Senegalese Government’s commitment to implementing this project is the prime
guarantee of sustainability. Indeed, the social tension created by recent floods and the special
situation of the Ziguinchor Region are major concerns for the Government, hence its significant
contribution to the financing of this project.
4.4.2 Regarding the rural component, the sustainability of project outcomes essentially depends
on the ability of private operators and ASUFOR to ensure efficient operation and proper
maintenance of the works. Technically, the water supply systems adopted under the project have
been designed to offer service levels matching users’ demand and payment capacity. The sale of
water by volume is practised in most pump-operated rural drinking water supply systems with a
performance rate estimated at 80%. The current statutes of ASUFOR fix the selling price of water at
CFAF 400 per m3, which is widely accepted by the population. An examination of the estimated
operating account of a mini-network (Annex B7) shows that operating costs are covered by revenue,
leaving a margin to cover the costs of operation, maintenance and servicing, including the renewal
of small equipment. The other element of sustainability of investments is based on the successful
implementation of Rural Water supply subsector reform, which provides for the institutionalization
of support to and counselling of the ASUFORs, management of the assets entrusted to the
commercial and industrial-type public entity (OFOR) and the definition of a regulatory mechanism.
4.4.3 Priority sensitization activities for behaviour change and training on management of
DWSS facilities will be implemented and will contribute to the durability of facilities. Similarly,
new databases that will emanate from actions to enhance the sector’s monitoring and evaluation
system will enhance monitoring of facilities, thus helping to ensure their sustainability.
4.4.4. For the urban component, the sustainability of investments depends primarily on the
capacity of ONAS to efficiently operate and maintain the facilities that will be provided. However,
ONAS has a chronic operating deficit estimated at CFAF 1,138 billion in 2012.
15
This deficit is due to the combined effects of (i) low investment in an antiquated network resulting
in high operating and maintenance costs and (ii) the low level of the sanitation fee. Thus, the rate of
coverage of operating expenses by the sanitation fee dropped from 70 % over the 2009, 2010, and
2011 three-year period to 65 % in 2012. The current ONAS sanitation fee (excluding operating
subsidies) stands at CFAF 51.6 as against a break-even price estimated at CFAF 66. The persistence
of this situation poses a problem of financial viability and even survival for ONAS. Accordingly, in
December 2013, a memo on the revision of the tariff policy in the water and sanitation sector was
prepared by the Ministry of Water Supply and Sanitation and submitted to the Government. This
revision is based on (i) a reduction in the volume of the social bracket of water from 20 to 18 m3;
and (ii) raising the sanitation fee by 40%, from CFAF 51.6 to CFAF 65.8. This would generate for
ONAS additional resources of CFAF 1, 623 billion and thus ensure its financial stability.
Additionally, the project will ensure the sustainability of investments through: (i) a reduction in
maintenance costs of the networks built or rehabilitated by ensuring greater private sector
involvement in the form of outsourcing and delegation of the operation of networks and stations
managed by ONAS; and (ii) a study on urban sanitation financing mechanisms. Furthermore, with
the construction of a new sewerage, Ziguinchor city will have a better sanitation network, thus
providing ONAS with additional sanitation fees that will increase coverage of maintenance and
servicing costs.
4.5 Risk Management
4.5.1. Risks: The main risks of the project concern: (i) delays in mobilizing the national
counterpart contribution which represents 34 % of the project cost; (ii) weak capacity of local
companies to implement rural sanitation works; and (iii) delays in implementing measures to
improve the financial health of ONAS.
4.5.2 Mitigation measures: (i) delays in mobilizing the national counterpart contribution:
Besides the Government's commitment, this risk is mitigated by the excellent outcomes of the
recent Paris Conference on financing Senegal’s Economic Emergence Plan. Furthermore, a
monitoring mechanism for the mobilization of the counterpart contribution involving the Country
Office and the PEPAM-CU has been set up; (ii) weak capacity of local companies to implement
rural sanitation works: To mitigate this risk, a list of efficient contractors has been drawn up based
on experience from the two previous Bank projects. Additionally, the procurement strategy adopted
was based on an efficient allotment and the raising of recruitment criteria to ensure the engagement
of competent contractors; and (iii) delays in implementing measures to improve the financial health
of ONAS: This risk is mitigated by the fact that the Government, in agreement with donors, has
raised the reform of the sector to a top priority,. Under the project, the Government will undertake
to: (i) adjust tariffs for drinking water and sanitation services for the period 2014-2018; and (ii)
implement the approved recommendations that stem from the study on financing mechanisms.
16
4.6 Knowledge Building
4.6.1 The implementation of the project will provide knowledge regarding: (i) the impact and
effects of DWSS interventions and IEC on the living conditions of beneficiaries; (ii) the use of
IWRM as a means of economic development; (iii) public-private partnership in the water and
sanitation sector; and (iv) the preparation of a guide to environmental monitoring of sanitation
projects.
4.6.2. The definition of key impact indicators prior to project start-up and impact assessment at
the end of the activities will help produce useful information on the outcomes and impact of the
project as a basis for future operations. The lessons learnt from the project will be included in the
periodic reports as well as in the project completion report and will serve as references for both the
Government of Senegal and the Bank.
V. Legal Framework
5.1. Legal Instrument
A loan agreement will be signed between the Republic of Senegal (the Borrower), on the one hand,
and the African Development Fund (the "ADF"), on the other. Similarly, a memorandum of
understanding will be signed between the Republic of Senegal (the "Grantee"), on the one hand, and
the African Development Bank and the ADF (on behalf of the RWSSI Fund), on the other.
5.2 Conditions for the Bank’s Intervention
A. Conditions Precedent to Effectiveness of the ADF Loan and RWSSI Grant:
This loan shall become effective subject to fulfillment by the Borrower, to the satisfaction of the
ADF, of the conditions laid down in Article 12.1 of the General Conditions. The RWSSI grant shall
become effective upon its signature.
B. Conditions precedent to first disbursement of the Loan and Grant: After the entry into
force, the first disbursement of the Loan and Grant resources shall be subject to fulfillment of the
following conditions to the satisfaction of the Fund:
(i) supplying evidence of the opening of special accounts in banks deemed acceptable
by the ADF, to receive the loan and grant resources; and
(ii) supplying to the ADF, evidence of the appointment of national and regional
counterparts of executing agencies (DH, DGPRE, DA, DEM and ONAS), together
with their respective CVs, which would have been approved beforehand by the Bank.
C. Other conditions: In addition, the Grantee/Borrower shall, to the satisfaction of the Fund;
supply the ADF with evidence of the compensation of persons affected by works on the water
treatment and purification station, prior to the start of the Ziguinchor sanitation works.
17
D. Undertakings: The Grantee/Borrower shall undertake to:
(i) include in the Finance Act each year, the counterpart contribution required for the
financing of the project;
(ii) maintain the personnel of the PEPAM Coordinating Unit;
(iii) make effective, the adjustment of drinking water and sanitation tariff for the period
2014-2018; and
(iv) implement the recommendations adopted following the study on urban sanitation
funding mechanisms.
5.3. Compliance with Bank Policies
The project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Management recommends that the Boards approve the proposal to grant an ADF loan of UA 20
million and award an RWSSI grant of EUR 6 million to the Government of Senegal, to finance the
Project described above, under the terms and conditions set forth in this report.
I
Annex 1: Comparative Socio-economic Indicators of Senegal
Year Senegal Africa
Develo-
ping
Countries
Develo-
ped
Countries
Basic Indicators
Area ( '000 Km²) 2011 197 30 323 98 458 35 811Total Population (millions) 2012 13,7 1 070,1 0,0 0,0Urban Population (% of Total) 2012 42,8 40,8 47,1 78,0Population Density (per Km²) 2012 64,9 34,5 69,8 23,5GNI per Capita (US $) 2012 1 040 1 604 3 795 37 653Labor Force Participation - Total (%) 2012 40,5 37,8 68,7 72,0Labor Force Participation - Female (%) 2012 43,9 42,5 38,9 44,5Gender -Related Dev elopment Index Value 2007-2011 0,457 0,525 0,694 0,911Human Dev elop. Index (Rank among 187 countries)2008-2012 154 ... ... ...Popul. Liv ing Below $ 1.25 a Day (% of Population)2009-2011 29,6 40,0 20,6 ...
Demographic Indicators
Population Grow th Rate - Total (%) 2012 2,9 2,3 1,3 0,3Population Grow th Rate - Urban (%) 2012 3,6 3,4 2,6 0,7Population < 15 y ears (%) 2012 43,5 40,0 28,5 16,4Population >= 65 y ears (%) 2012 3,0 3,6 6,0 16,6Dependency Ratio (%) 2012 84,3 77,3 52,6 49,2Sex Ratio (per 100 female) 2012 96,1 100,0 103,3 94,3Female Population 15-49 y ears (% of total population) 2012 24,4 49,8 53,3 45,6Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Total (y ears) 2012 63,3 58,1 68,2 77,7Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Female (y ears) 2012 64,7 59,1 70,1 81,1Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000) 2012 38,1 33,3 21,4 11,3Crude Death Rate (per 1,000) 2012 7,7 10,9 7,6 10,3Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000) 2012 49,6 71,4 40,9 5,6Child Mortality Rate (per 1,000) 2012 74,3 111,3 57,7 6,7Total Fertility Rate (per w oman) 2012 5,0 4,2 2,6 1,7Maternal Mortality Rate (per 100,000) 2006-2010 370,0 415,3 240,0 16,0Women Using Contraception (%) 2012 13,9 34,5 62,4 71,4
Health & Nutrition Indicators
Phy sicians (per 100,000 people) 2004-2010 5,9 49,2 103,7 291,9Nurses (per 100,000 people)* 2004-2009 42,0 133,0 168,7 734,3Births attended by Trained Health Personnel (%) 2006-2010 65,1 53,7 64,3 ...Access to Safe Water (% of Population) 2011 73,4 67,8 86,5 99,1Access to Health Serv ices (% of Population) 2000 90,0 65,2 80,0 100,0Access to Sanitation (% of Population) 2011 51,4 40,2 56,8 96,1Percent. of Adults (aged 15-49) Liv ing w ith HIV/AIDS 2011 0,7 4,6 0,9 0,5Incidence of Tuberculosis (per 100,000) 2011 136,0 234,6 146,0 23,0Child Immunization Against Tuberculosis (%) 2011 95,0 81,6 83,9 95,4Child Immunization Against Measles (%) 2011 82,0 76,5 83,7 93,5Underw eight Children (% of children under 5 y ears) 2006-2011 19,2 19,8 17,0 1,4Daily Calorie Supply per Capita 2009 2 479 2 481 2 675 3 285Public Ex penditure on Health (as % of GDP) 2010-2011 3,5 5,9 2,9 7,4
Education Indicators
Gross Enrolment Ratio (%)
Primary School - Total 2009-2012 86,2 107,0 107,8 102,7 Primary School - Female 2009-2012 89,0 103,1 106,2 102,3 Secondary School - Total 2009-2012 42,1 46,3 66,4 100,4 Secondary School - Female 2009-2012 40,3 41,9 65,1 100,0Primary School Female Teaching Staff (% of Total) 2009-2012 30,6 39,2 58,6 81,3Adult literacy Rate - Total (%) 2009 49,7 71,5 80,2 …Adult literacy Rate - Male (%) 2009 61,8 78,4 85,9 …Adult literacy Rate - Female (%) 2009 38,7 64,9 74,8 …Percentage of GDP Spent on Education 2008-2010 5,6 5,3 4,5 5,5
Environmental Indicators
Land Use (Arable Land as % of Total Land Area) 2011 20,0 7,6 10,7 10,8Annual Rate of Deforestation (%) 2000-2009 0,7 0,6 0,4 -0,2Forest (As % of Land Area) 2011 43,8 23,0 28,7 40,4Per Capita CO2 Emissions (metric tons) 2009 0,4 1,2 3,0 11,6
Sources : AfDB Statistics Department Databases; World Bank: World Development Indicators; last update :
UNAIDS; UNSD; WHO, UNICEF, WRI, UNDP; Country Reports.
Note : n.a. : Not Applicable ; … : Data Not Available.
COMPARATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Senegal
october 2013
0102030405060708090
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Infant Mortality Rate( Per 1000 )
Senegal Africa
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
GNI Per Capita US $
Senegal Africa
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Population Growth Rate (%)
Senegal Africa
111213141516171
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
Senegal Africa
II
Annex 2: Table of AfDB Portfolio in the Country
(Portfolio of Active National Projects as at 31 January 2014)
Date Amount Amount
Disbur
sement Closing
Sector / Operation
of
Approval Approved Disbursed Rate Date
(UA m.) (UA m.) (%)
RURAL/AGRICULTURE
1 ● Support to Small-scale Irrigation (PAPIL II) 26-Jan.-11 8.40 6.03 71.81
31-Dec.-
14
2 ● Support to Development of Casamance (PADERCA) 19-Oct.-05 20.00 15.78 78.91 19-Dec.-
14
3 ● Feeder Roads Project in Support of the National
Programme for Local Development (PPC/PNDL) 17-Jul.-13 15.00 0.00 0.00
31-Dec.-18
4 ● Guiers Lake Restoration Project (PREFELAC) -ADF
- GEF
4-Sept.-13
4-Sept.-13
15.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31-Dec.-
18
31-Dec.-18
5 ● Food Security Support Louga Matam Kaffrine - ADF
- GAFSP
26- Apr.-13 26- Apr.-13
2.00 26.06
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
31-Dec.-
18 31-Dec.-
18
Sub-total /Average 87.85 21.81 24.82
INFRASTRUCTURE
6 ● Rural Electrification 13-Oct.-04 9.58 3.68 38.42 31-Oct.-15
7 ● Dakar-Diamniadio Highway 15-Jul.-09 45.00 43.59 96.86 31-Dec.-
14
Sub-total /Average 54.58 47.27 86.60
WATER AND SANITATION
8 ● Rural DWSS Programme (PEPAM II) 18-Feb.-09 30.00 21.81 72.70 31-Dec-14
9 ● Ziguinchor Sludge Collection and Management (AWF) 23-Apr.-13 1.11 0.00 0.00 31-Dec-15
Sub-total /Average 31.12 21.81 70.25
SOCIAL
10 ● Project in Support the Promotion of Youth and
Women’s Employment (PAPEJF) 23-Oct.-13 21.19 0.00 0.00 31-Dec-18
11 ● Virtual University of Senegal Support Project (PAUVS) 19-Dec.-13 3.38 0.00 0.00 31-Dec-18
Sub-total /Average 24.57 - 0
GOVERNANCE
12 ● Inclusive Growth and Economic Competitiveness
Support Programme (PACICE) 19- Jun -13 25.54 25.54 100.00
31-Dec.-
14
13 ● Private Sector Promotion Support Project (PAPSP) 10-Sept.-12 4.04 0.61 15.11 30-Jun-16
Sub-total /Average 29.58 26.15 88.4
TOTAL / AVERAGE 227.7 117.04 51.5
III
Annex 3: Key Related Projects Financed by the Bank
and Other Development Partners of the Country
Donors Amount
(Billion CFAF) Projects Status
Luxemburg 2.5 National Institutional Support Programme
(PAEX)- SEN030 Part 2
Ongoing
Luxemburg 0.4 Programme SEN026 – Monitoring and
Evaluation Component
Closed
Luxemburg 2.5 National Institutional Support Programme
(PAEX)- SEN030 Part 2
Ongoing
EU 18 PEPAM-EU Starting
World
Bank
28 PEPAM-IDA Ongoing
AfDB 11 Dakar City Sanitation Project (PAVD) Closed in
2008
AfDB 20 PEPAM-AfDB, phase 1 Closed in
2010
AfDB 23 PEPAM-AfDB, phase 2 Ongoing
IV
Annex 4: Project Area Map
KEY Rural areas drinking water supply and sanitation
component
Urban areas sanitation component
ADB-PSEA PROJECT AREA
V
Annex 5: Summary Presentation of Procurement Procedures
Expenditure Categories under the Project
In UA million
Use of
NPP
Use of Bank
Rules and
Procedures
Contracts
not
Financed
by the
Bank
Total
1. WORKS
1.1. Construction of 20 New Boreholes 1.166 (0.816)
1.166 (0.816)
1.2. Construction works of 30 Multi-village DWS
and Network Extension on 10 sites 7.77 (5.440) 7.77 (5.440)
1.3 Sanitation works in Almadies in Dakar 0.351(0.245) 0.351(0.245)
1.4. Sanitation works in Dakar and Ziguinchor 9.780 (5.365) 9.780 (5.365)
1.5. Construction of 40 Public Toilets 0.174 (0.157) 0.174 (0.157)
1.6. Construction of 17 000 Individual structures
and Connections 5.978 (2.890) 5.978 .890)
2. GOODS
2.1. Equipment for New DWS Systems and Existing
Boreholes 0.758 (0.653) 0.758 (0.653)
2.2. Vehicles and Motorcycles 0.37 (0.185) 0.37 (0.185)
2.3. IT Equipment and Software 0.044 (0.044) 0.044 (0.044)
2.4. Office Furniture 0.027 (0.027) 0.027 (0.027)
2.5. Technical Equipment for the Implementation of
the EIS - IWRM 0.109 (0.109) 0.109 (0.109)
2.6. Collection Equipment for Women and Youth 0.135 (0.135) 0.135 (0.135)
3. SERVICES
3.1 Control and Supervision of Rural and Urban
DWS and Sanitation Works 2.547 (1.286) 2.547 (1.286)
3.2. Technical and Environmental Studies on the
Hann- Fann Collector Pipes 1.166 (0.933) 1.166 (0.933)
3.4. IEC for Rural and Urban DWS and Sanitation 2.044 (1.02) 2.044 (1.02)
3.5. Study on Impacts and Inter-sector Relations 0.131 (0.131) 0.131 (0.131)
3.6. Studies on the IWRM 1.575 (1.259) 1.575 (1.259)
3.7. Studies on Urban Reform 0.364 (0.328) 0.364 (0.328)
3.8. Studies on Rural Reform 0.583 (0.524) 0.583 (0.524)
3.9. Project Audit 0.0437 (0.0437) 0.0437 (0.0437)
3.10. Agreement Signed with ANSD 0.256 (0.256) 0.256 (0.256)
3.11. Studies for the Development of the Sector 0.160 (0.160) 0.160 (0.160)
3.12. Individual Consultants (Training, Monitoring
and Evaluation) 0.677 (0.677) 0.677 (0.677)
OPERATION, including DEEC Agreement 2.57 (2.57) 2.57 (2.57)
TOTAL 4.58 (4.20) 34.24 (21.14) 38.82 (25.34)
NB: ( ) The figures in brackets are the amounts financed by the ADF and RWSSI
