|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
SENEGAL
Activity Data Sheet
>> AFR Regional Overview >> Senegal Overview PROGRAM: SENEGAL
TITLE & NUMBER: More Effective, Democratic, and Accountable Local Management of Services and Resources in Target Areas, 685-002
STATUS: Continuing
PLANNED FY 2001 OBLIGATION AND FUNDING SOURCE: $4,800,000 (DA)
PROPOSED FY 2002 OBLIGATION AND FUNDING SOURCE: $5,750,000 (DA)
INITIAL OBLIGATION: FY 1998 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: FY 2006Summary: This democracy and governance Strategic Objective (SO) increases the ability of Senegalese in all 10 regions, 60 urban communes and 320 rural communes to foster transparency and citizen participation in local affairs and to mobilize resources at local levels to address development needs. This objective fosters the growth of democratic institutions, promotes respect for human rights and promotes the adoption of sustainable natural resource management practices. The SO builds upon the success of past USAID-funded activities including: (a) working with communities to help villagers develop land use management plans; (b) supporting local organizations to create new income generating activities; and (c) contributing to the implementation of the Government of Senegal's National Environmental Action Plan.
USAID will consider this objective met when the following results are achieved (1) increased capacity of local institutions; (2) increased access to financial resources; (3) increased popular participation in the management and oversight of local affairs; and (4) more effective implementation of policies and regulations related to decentralization. In FY 2001, activities to achieve these results will receive $2.1 million in democracy funds and $2.7 million in environment funds under the Development Assistance account.
In FY 2002 $5.750 million (DA) is requested to support the GOS National Environmental Action Plan; expand decentralization activities to all ten regions of the country; and increase community based program activities in agriculture and natural resources management.
Key Results: Successful local management of natural resources is essential to the economic and social welfare of Senegal. In FY 2000, 94% of targeted communities successfully implemented land use plans developed with the assistance of USAID's community based natural resource management program. Small-scale commercial activity has increased as well, and the natural resource management committees now established appear poised to continue to operate without substantial assistance from USAID. This bodes well for the next phase of agriculture and natural resource management assistance now being designed.
Land tenure continues to be an extremely sensitive and unresolved issue. USAID supported convocations in all ten regions and at the national level that resulted in a consensus position amongst the regional councils on changes to the land tenure law. This position has been passed to the national legislature for action. On the broader theme of conflict resolution, USAID assistance increased local leaders' knowledge of the law and regulatory texts related to the national land tenure systems. Local Development Committees (LDCs) took extensive advantage of the assistance: 68% of LDCs used established mechanisms for the resolutions of conflicts among and within local organizations whereas the target for this year was only 10%. Also in 2000, 44% of female and 59% of male community leaders in USAID zones of intervention improved their knowledge of national land tenure laws and regulations. As compared to the baseline figures, the percent of women who have knowledge of national land tenure laws and regulations increased by 5%, and for men 4%.
All this contributes to the decentralization objective, where other assistance this year improved the cooperative preparation and execution of budgets, a key determinant of progress: the 2001 GOS budget was not only prepared by the local governments in the zones of intervention, but also involved all local actors in the budget process. Improved local planning and budgeting processes have mobilized community resources to address priority development needs such as improved health services, restoration of salinated acreage for cultivation and use of more productive crops; increased micro and small enterprise: resolution of local conflicts and further training of local leaders and citizens in decentralized government
Performance and Prospects: Decentralization, generally and in specific sectors like agriculture and natural resource management, has central government support in principle but still needs concerted political will to streamline transfer of funds, information and skills. The key Decentralization Law was passed in 1996, but decentralization is still very much a work-in-progress. USAID is supporting an evaluation of the impact to date of decentralization reform. Where previously virtually all resources were managed by central government, a significant portion are now meant to be managed at the local level. The GOS is making changes to the cabinet and has announced important proposals for structuring regional and local government. This suggests a willingness to work further in strengthening local resource management. USAID is moving ahead with plans to expand activities from three regions to all ten. While a number of donors are working in decentralization, USAID's participatory, problem-oriented approach is unique. It centers around the provision of training and technical support on a demand-driven basis to strengthen local government and community capacities to address their prioritized development needs. The success USAID is having, and tools it is designing, will serve as models for others.
In addition to impact on land tenure already mentioned, USAID engaged in an effort to help resolve a volatile local land use conflict in southern Senegal. A case study was conducted to examine decentralization policy and regulatory issues surrounding the management of the Pata rural community forest in the Kolda region. Already serious land pressure is intensifying as farmers from the north attempt to settle inside and around the forest border. A workshop to validate recommendations of the study and develop long lasting conflict resolution mechanisms took place in February 2001. It was attended by almost 200 people from local communities, as well as the governor and key GOS officials. A group is being established that will now take on the work of resolving specific issues such as access to water sites and alternative crop cultivation by the farmers from the north. This was hailed as unprecedented in Senegal - the resolution of such problems used to be dictated by the central or local authorities and rarely reflected the views of the local population.
USAID supported a major nation-wide public awareness program to promote broad-based participation in the 2000 Presidential Elections. The program was implemented by a consortium of eleven local human rights NGOs using public and private news media (radio, newspapers and TV) with grassroots activities conducted in partnership with Community Based Organizations (CBOs). The election produced the first change in the ruling political party since independence 40 years ago. USAID was cited by the government and civil society as the donor that contributed the most to a free and peaceful presidential election. This program also helped bring together, for the first time in Senegal, 11 NGOs in one coordinating and implementing structure to achieve a common goal.
Possible Adjustment to Plans: USAID is planning to develop a new agriculture and natural resources management Strategic Objective. Several detailed analyses have been completed in recent years that point to the continuing importance of this sector to Senegal's growth prospects. Agriculture and fisheries provide employment for approximately 80% of Senegal's workforce and account for 60% of exports. The continued loss of areas with adequate rainfall to support rainfed agriculture and large-scale migrations out of agricultural areas with depleted soils (among other factors) are increasing pressure on the remaining cultivatable land, natural forests and other resources. While other donors are supporting projects targeted in specific geographic areas, none are taking a holistic, sectoral approach. The centrality of the sector and USAID's technical strengths make support to agriculture and natural resource management a continuing requisite for the USAID portfolio. USAID support will be more appropriately focused and effective and will receive the attention it deserves with a separate SO. USAID's leadership in community-oriented program design and operation complements the work of other donors in this sector.
Host Country and Other Donors: Canada is the lead donor and coordinator for decentralization programs. Canada's assistance focuses on fiscal discipline and financial transfers among levels of government, and training for the national association of newly elected regional officials. The European Union is providing equipment to the new local governing bodies as well as helping with information systems. France, upon whose governing system the decentralization law was modeled, is providing training and equipment. Other key donors include the United Nations Development Program, the World Bank, the Netherlands, and Germany.
Principal Contractors, Grantees or Agencies: The Southeast Consortium for International Development (SECID) is providing natural resource management assistance through September 30, 2001. ENDA/GRAF, a Senegal-based international NGO, will expand its technical assistance services to six new local development committees. Associates in Rural Development Inc. (ARD), a U.S. contractor, is implementing the bulk of the decentralization program. SAFEFOD, a Senegal based NGO, has a grant for decentralization assistance in the Saint-Louis region.
FY 2002 Performance Tables
Performance Measures:
Indicator FY97 (Actual) FY98 (Actual) FY99 (Actual) FY00 (Actual) FY00 (Plan) FY01 (Plan) FY02 (Plan) Indicator 1: Proportion of local organizations (Local Development Committees and Community-Based Organizations) leaders that have knowledge of the law and regulatory texts related to the national land tenure system. NA NA M=55
F=39M=59
F=44M=65
F=49M=85
F=69M=95
F=79Indicator 2: Proportion of Local Development Comittees that used established mechanims for the resolution of conflicts between and within local organizations NA NA 0 68 10 75 80 Indicator 3: Number of Natural Resource Management (NRM) Committees that are operational NA NA 13 15 16 16 NA Indicator 4: Proportion of minutes of the Local Development Committee meetings that were accessible to Community-based Organization members in local languages NA NA 0 50 40 60 75 Indicator Information:
Indicator Level (S) or (IR) Unit of Measure Source Indicator Description Indicator 1: IR Percent (%) local leaders Source: ENDA-GRAF "A Local Development Committee is a coordination framework established by a Local Government Unit (LGU) and the different Community-based Organizations concerned with socio-economic development activities in the LGU area.
The involvement of Local Government Units in land tenure represents one of the nine competencies transferred to that link them with decentralized natural resource mangement. The 1972 Administrative Reform and the 1996 Decentralization Law give LGUs the responsibility for managing their local land resource bases.
This indicator deals with the level of local leaders’ knowledge about this important aspect of their responsibilities. "Indicator 2: IR Percent (%) of Local Development Committees Source: ENDA-GRAF "A Local Development Committee is a coordination framework established by a Local Government Unit (LGU)and the different Community-based Organizations concerned with socio-economic development activities in the LGU area.
This indicator deals with Local Development Committees which have established mechanism(s) for resolution of conflits over natural resources (e. g.; land, water. Etc) "Indicator 3: IR Number of NRM Committees Source: Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Program results report dated December 2000 "The Natural Resource Management (NRM) Committees are established in each of the targeted Local Government Areas with the support of the CBNRM Project. The Committees represent the technical unit of the Local Government Units. As such the Committees coordinate and promote local participation in NRM. Criteria used to monitor their performance include (a) a maximum of 12 monthly meetings is scheduled by each Committee for each fiscal year The meeting schedule is to be implemented in compliance with the NRM Committees Administrative and Financial Management Manual, which requires the presence of 51 % of Committee members for a meeting to take place (as reflected by the attendance sheets); and, (b) at least two-thirds (67%) of the activities included in the committee’s annual workplan and scheduled for a particular fiscal year are implement" Indicator 4: IR Percent (%) of meeting minutes Source: ENDA-GRAF A Local Development Committee is a coordination framework established by a Local Government Unit (LGU) and the different Community-based Organizations concerned with socio-economic development activities in the LGU area. The internal rules and regulations of a Local Development Committee provide for statutory meetings. These meetings are attended by representatives of the LGU and leaders of the the various Community-based Organizations affiliated to the Local Development Committee. To allow a wide distribution of information and regular communication with the local population, the minutes of such meetings are to be translated into local languages.
U.S. Financing
(In thousands of dollars)
Obligations Expenditures Unliquidated Through September 30, 1999 21,998 DA 12,963 DA 9,035 DA 4,215 SDP 4,215 SDP 0 SDP 0 ESF 0 ESF 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 FSA 74,032 DFA 72,912 DFA 1,120 DFA Fiscal Year 2000 5,380 DA 5,479 DA 0 CSD 0 CSD 300 ESF 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 DFA 0 DFA Through September 30, 2000 27,378 DA 18,442 DA 8,936 DA 4,215 SDP 4,215 SDP 0 SDP 300 ESF 0 ESF 300 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 FSA 74,032 DFA 72,912 DFA 1,120 DFA Prior Year Unobligated Funds 0 DA 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 DFA Planned Fiscal Year 2001 NOA 4,800 DA 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 DFA Total Planned Fiscal Year 2001 4,800 DA 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 DFA Future Obligations Est. Total Cost Proposed Fiscal Year 2002 NOA 5,750 DA 20,720 DA 58,648 DA 0 CSD 0 CSD 4,215 SDP 0 ESF 0 ESF 300 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 DFA 0 DFA 74,032 DFA
 |
|||
Last Updated on: May 29, 2002 |
