Republic of Senegal Operations Plan Edition 2015/2016

REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL One People - One Goal - One Faith

African Risk Capacity (ARC)

REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL OPERATIONS PLAN EDITION 2015/2016

November 2015

Table of contents

1. General Information ...... 5 2. Senegalese Drought Profile ...... 6 2.1. General geographic distribution of droughts ...... 6 2.2. General rainfall features of the country ...... 9 2.3. Seasonal agricultural calendar ...... 10 2.4. Historical drought description ...... 10 2.5. Historical drought impact...... 11 2.6. Historical drought interventions ...... 12 2.7. Discussion of points 2.4 to 2.6 ...... 13 3. Institutional Arrangements ...... 13 3.1. Existing national policies or legislation ...... 13 3.2. Existing assessment processes ...... 14 3.3. Contingency planning procedures for drought ...... 14 3.5. Proposed financial arrangements and coordination of ARC payout ...... 16 4. Risk Transfer Parameters ...... 17 5. Scenario Definition ...... 17 5.1. Drought model scenarios ...... 18 6. Intervention Details ...... 19 6.1. First intervention: Food distribution ...... 19 6.2. Second intervention: Cash transfer ...... 24 6.3. Third intervention: Cattle feed distribution ...... 28 6.4 Fourth intervention: Screening and management of acute malnutrition ...... 31 7. Monitoring & Evaluation Framework and Plan ...... 34 8. Programme Risks and Assumptions ...... 35 9. Definition of Standard Operating Procedures ...... 37 10. Bibliography ...... 43 11. Annexes ...... 44

List of acronyms

ACRONYM MEANING ANACIM National Civil Aviation and Meteorological Agency ANSD National Agency of Statistics and Demography ARC African Risk Capacity ARV Africa RiskView CLM Unit to Combat Malnutrition CSA Food Security DPC Directorate of Civil Protection EWS Early Warning System (or SAP) ERASAN Rural Survey on Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition FEWSNET Famine Early Warning Systems Network MEFP Ministry of the Economy, Finances and Planning MEPA Ministry of Livestock and Animal Productions MSAS Ministry of Health and Social Welfare PSE Emerging Senegal Plan SE/CNSA Executive Secretariat of the National Food Security Council ZAR Zones (areas) at Risk

List of Figures

Figure 1: Rainfall trends (in mm) in Senegal covering the period 1980-2013 ...... 9 Figure 2: Rainfall trends in Senegal between 2004 and 2013 ...... 10 Figure 3: Seasonal Calendar in Senegal ...... 10

1. General Information

Name of Country: SENEGAL Legal representative for the Mr. Abdoulaye NABO plan: Director of Civil Protection (DPC) Ministry of the Interior and Public Security Courriel : [email protected] Téléphone : +221 33 889 39 00 Focal point for the plan: Mr. Massamba DIOP ARC National Administrator Food Security Commission (CSA) Email: [email protected] Telephone: +221 775291562 / +221 338210811

1.1. Status of Senegal in Terms of Risk 1.1.1. Most serious risks

Senegal is prone to various risks which are mainly linked to climate change. Because of its geographical location, the country is exposed to the risk of coastal erosion which threatens habitat and infrastructure all along the coastline. Furthermore, the country regularly faces problems relating to rainfall distribution over time and area. On average, the rainfall varies from more than 1000 mm in the south to less than 300 mm in the north. The poor distribution of rainfall over time means that there are long periods of drought, such as those in 1980, 1983, 1996 and 2002. The erratic nature of the rainfall can also lead to flooding, as in 2005. In addition to unpredictable rainfall, locusts and grain-feeding birds are major risks for crops and pasturage. In 1983, 1992 and 2002, the country experienced infestations of desert locusts, which had a negative impact on agricultural production.

On top of these various risks, volatile food prices for subsistence crops, cash crops and cattle add risk for food insecurity. This variability can be partly ascribed to fluctuations on world markets. The land ownership system, access to land, cattle diseases (e.g. Rift Valley fever, bird flu, Newcastle disease) and cattle theft are all risks to livestock.

1.1.2. Vulnerability

Climatic and other natural disasters (e.g. repeated droughts, floods, locust infestations) further undermine food security and the livelihoods of vulnerable households. Drought-related risks have a greater effect on rural populations who practice agriculture in the broad meaning of the term (e.g. farming, fishing, livestock farming, etc.). Out of 1 607 769 ordinary households living in Senegal, 755 532 practice agriculture, i.e. 47% (ANSD: National Agency of Statistics and Demography, 2013). It should be noted that more than 73% of farming households live in a rural environment characterised by a high rate of poverty (57%) and a low level of access to basic social services, in spite of all the efforts made by the State.

Rural farming households are most at risk from climate change, the threat of locust infestations, dysfunctional food product and livestock markets, etc. These categories of households have to deal with the continual depletion and deterioration of natural resources, soil fertility, and fishery resources.

Irregular rains and droughts lead to a shortage of grazing for livestock. This phenomenon is more accentuated in the sylvo-pastoral zone.

In these categories of households, the most vulnerable groups are children under five years old, pregnant and breast-feeding women, female heads of households (FCM), the elderly, the handicapped, and those suffering from chronic diseases.

1.1.3. National risk and disaster management capacity

In Senegal, the prevention and management of disaster risks faces many obstacles. The country does not have a major natural disaster risk research unit, experiences are not shared, and disaster risk prevention techniques are not disseminated. Moreover, Senegal has to deal with a shortage of dedicated sea and air intervention resources, as well as a lack of specialised equipment to deal with maritime search and rescue events, maritime safety, and sea pollution. Furthermore, there is no functional insurance system to compensate victims of natural disasters and local authorities lack local emergency plans.

The State has nevertheless established a legal and institutional framework to manage disaster risks. This framework consists of consultative bodies including the Higher Civil Protection Commission, the National Platform for the Prevention and Reduction of Major Disaster Risks, and Regional and Departmental Civil Protection Committees. Apart from these consultative bodies, there is also a Civil Protection Directorate and the National Fire Brigade, which are the main executive bodies for disaster risk management.

For livestock grazing, the State has developed an innovative mechanism which makes it possible to ensure the survival of herds threatened by drought: the livestock rescue operation (OSB). This operation was initiated in 2012 and aims to save the herds should there be a shortage of grazing. However, it should be noted that herding communities have a traditional adaptation mechanism for drought which consists of moving livestock to areas that are less affected.

With regard to nutritional monitoring and the management of acute malnutrition cases, mechanisms instituted by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare as well as the Nutritional Reinforcement Programme implemented by the Unit to Combat Malnutrition (CLM), allow continuous monitoring of the nutritional status of vulnerable populations and put in place appropriate interventions to deal with disasters.

1.2. Goal of this Operational Plan

The goal of this operations plan is to improve the food security of households and livestock affected by a rainfall deficit. In particular, the operational plan seeks to:

 provide food assistance to households that are the most affected by drought in order to safeguard their livelihoods;  safeguard herds from a shortage of grazing;  conduct nutritional monitoring and offer appropriate care to inhabitants affected by acute malnutrition in disaster areas.

2. Senegalese Drought Profile

2.1. General geographic distribution of droughts Senegal has 14 regions and 45 departments. Except for the regions of Dakar, Kaffrine and Tambacounda which each have four departments, all other regions consist of three departments.

Region Department Drought Top 3 crops Any other important prone vulnerable livelihoods (Yes /No) to droughts DAKAR DAKAR No - - DAKAR GUEDIAWAYE No - - DAKAR PIKINE No - - DAKAR RUFISQUE No - - Groundnuts, millet and DIOURBEL BAMBEY Yes maize Trade, livestock farming

Region Department Drought Top 3 crops Any other important prone vulnerable livelihoods (Yes /No) to droughts Groundnuts, millet and DIOURBEL DIOURBEL Yes maize Trade, livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and DIOURBEL MBACKE Yes maize Trade, livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and Fisheries, tourism, salt FATICK FATICK Yes maize production Groundnuts, millet and FATICK FOUNDIOUGNE Yes maize Tourism, fisheries Groundnuts, millet and FATICK GOSSAS Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and KAFFRINE BIRKELANE Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and KAFFRINE KAFFRINE Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and KAFFRINE KOUNGHEUL Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and KAFFRINE MALEM HODDAR Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and KAOLACK GUINGUINEO Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and Trade, livestock farming, KAOLACK KAOLACK Yes maize fisheries Groundnuts, millet and KAOLACK NIORO Yes maize Livestock farming, trade Groundnuts, millet and KEDOUGOU KEDOUGOU Yes maize Gold exploration, forestry Groundnuts, millet and KEDOUGOU SALEMATA Yes maize Forestry Groundnuts, millet and KEDOUGOU SARAYA Yes maize Forestry Groundnuts, millet and KOLDA KOLDA Yes maize Forestry, fisheries

Region Department Drought Top 3 crops Any other important prone vulnerable livelihoods (Yes /No) to droughts Groundnuts, MEDINA YORO millet and KOLDA FOULAH Yes maize Forestry, fisheries Groundnuts, millet and Forestry, livestock KOLDA VELINGARA Yes maize farming Cowpeas, Groundnuts, LOUGA KEBEMER Yes and millet Livestock farming Cowpeas, Groundnuts, LOUGA LINGUERE Yes and millet Livestock farming Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Livestock farming, LOUGA LOUGA Yes and millet emigration Cowpeas, Groundnuts, MATAM KANEL Yes and millet Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and MATAM MATAM Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and MATAM RANEROU Yes maize Livestock farming Rice, millet Market gardening, SAINT LOUIS DAGANA Yes and maize fisheries Fisheries, market Rice, millet gardening, Livestock SAINT LOUIS PODOR Yes and maize farming Groundnuts, millet and SAINT LOUIS SAINT LOUIS Yes maize Tourism, fisheries Groundnuts, millet and SEDHIOU BOUNKILING Yes maize Fisheries, forestry Groundnuts, millet and SEDHIOU GOUDOMP Yes maize Fisheries, forestry Groundnuts, millet and SEDHIOU SEDHIOU Yes maize Fisheries, forestry Groundnuts, cotton and TAMBACOUNDA BAKEL Yes maize Fisheries, emigration Groundnuts, millet and TAMBACOUNDA GOUDIRY Yes maize Emigration

Region Department Drought Top 3 crops Any other important prone vulnerable livelihoods (Yes /No) to droughts Groundnuts, millet and TAMBACOUNDA KOUMPENTOUM Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnuts, millet and TAMBACOUNDA TAMBACOUNDA Yes maize Livestock farming Groundnut, millet and THIES MBOUR Yes cassava Fisheries, trade Groundnut, millet and Fisheries, market THIES THIES Yes cassava gardening, industry Groundnut, millet and trade, industry, market THIES TIVAOUANE Yes cassava gardening Rice, millet ZIGUINCHOR BIGNONA Yes and maize Fisheries, forestry Rice, millet Fisheries, forestry, ZIGUINCHOR OUSSOUYE Yes and maize tourism Rice, millet Fisheries, tourism, ZIGUINCHOR ZIGUINCHOR Yes and maize forestry

2.2. General rainfall features of the country

Like all countries of the Sahel, Senegal is characterised by highly variable rainfall in both time and space. The northern regions generally receive an annual rainfall of less than 500 mm. This is true for the regions of Saint Louis, Louga and Matam, while southern regions such as Ziguinchor, Kédougou and Sédhiou record more than 1000 mm as an annual average (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Rainfall trends (in mm) in Senegal covering the period 1980-2013 1163 1223 1042 919 569 617 668 672 380 390 487 493

251 352

thiès

kolda

fatick

louga

dakar

matam

kaolack

kaffrine

sédhiou

diourbel

kédougou

ziguinchor saint Louis

tambacounda Source: (WB, 2014)

Figure 1 also shows how irregular rainfall can be over time. During the period 2008-2010, the average rainfall recorded in the twenty weather stations of the country exceeded the bar of 800 mm per year (Figure 1). Precipitation was particularly poor (in quantity and duration) in 2007 and 2011.

Figure 2: Rainfall trends in Senegal between 2004 and 2013

quantité moy en mm nb moy en jours

1000 60 800 600 40 400 20 200 0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: ANACIM data gathered by the ANSD

2.3. Seasonal agricultural calendar

Senegal's agricultural sector enjoys some important advantages and favourable conditions, notably its potential 35 billion cubic metres of surface and underground water and more than 3,8 million hectares of arable land. However, farming in Senegal depends largely on the rainy season which generally starts in May and ends in October (Figure 2). The harvest period of crops such as millet, sorghum, maize and groundnuts is October and November.

Figure 3: Seasonal calendar in Senegal

Seasonal calendar in Senegal

Millet Harvest L/P Planting Weeding/Hoeing Harv est Weeding/Hoeing Maize, Gnut, sorghum Harvest Land preparation Planti ng Rice W/h Harvest Planting/Repl Harvest L/P Planti Weeding/Hoeing ant ng Rainy season Dry season Rainy season

October November December January February March April May June July August September

Transhumance (Livestock migration)

Marketing of groundnut Seasonal migration

Source: FEWSNET (Newsletter no.1, December 2012)

2.4. Historical drought description

The key aspect of a meteorological risk is that of moisture content stress caused either by irregular rainfall, early stoppage of rainfall, late start of rainfall or extended drought. Even in the absence of these specific conditions, studies have shown that more than 40 % of the variation in national crop production may be attributed simply to annual variation in rainfall (World Bank, 2014).

Year Affected regions Source Official Impact on food security statement and livelihoods

2004- None 2006 2007 All regions except for ANACIM (National Civil No  Drop in agricultural Dakar Aviation and production; Meteorology Agency)  Shortage of grazing for livestock  Rural exodus;

Year Affected regions Source Official Impact on food security statement and livelihoods

 Sell-off of livestock;  Sell-off of production equipment;  Food and nutritional insecurity 2008- None 2010 2011 All regions except for ANACIM No  Drop in agricultural Dakar production;  Shortage of grazing for livestock  Rural exodus;  Sell-off of livestock;  Sell-off of production equipment;  Food and nutritional insecurity 2012 None

2013 All regions except for ANACIM No  Drop in agricultural Dakar production;  Shortage of grazing for livestock  Rural exodus;  Sell-off of livestock;  Sell-off of production equipment;  Food and nutritional insecurity 2014 All regions except for ANACIM No  Drop in agricultural Dakar production;  Shortage of grazing for livestock  Rural exodus;  Sell-off of livestock;  Sell-off of production equipment;  Food and nutritional insecurity

2.5. Historical drought impact

This section describes the impact of drought in Senegal during the past ten years in terms of the number of persons and households needing assistance.

Persons affected by food Persons affected by Livestock affected insecurity malnutrition

Year Number Source Number Source Number Source 2007 Not available 2011 806 000 WFP *120 000 WFP 645 721 WFP persons (action children (action Tropical (action plan for aged 6-59 plan for Livestock Units plan for 2012) months 2012) (sensitive) 2012) *10 900 pregnant

and breast- feeding women 2013 675 000 SECNSA SECNSA 628 163 SECNSA persons (Executive (response Tropical (response Secretariat plan for Livestock Units plan for of the 2014) (sensitive) 2014) National Food Security Council) (response plan for 2014) 2014 927 416 SECNSA SECNSA SECNSA (response (response (response plan for plan for plan for 2015) 2015) 2015) 784 000 ARC (ARV newsletter for November 2014)

2.6. Historical drought interventions

There have been three interventions during the past ten years following difficulties during the 2007, 2011, 2013 and 2014 rainy seasons.

Number of beneficiaries of Number of beneficiaries Number of stock farmers food assistance (foodstuffs, of nutritional initiatives who have benefitted from cash, food vouchers) the sale of subsidised animal feed Number Source Number Source Number Source 2008 24 941 tons of CSA (Food rice were Security distributed to Commission) inhabitants 2012 1 080 902 Review of 250 000 Review of 116 980 Review of persons the children the Tropical the 2011/2012 2011/2012 Livestock 2011/2012 food and food and Units food and nutritional nutritional nutritional crisis crisis crisis (Ministry of (Ministry of (Ministry of Family Family Family Affairs) Affairs) Affairs) 2014 618 395 2014 25 571 2014 41 Tropical 2014 Response children Response Livestock Response Plan Report Plan Report Units Plan Report (SECNSA) (SECNSA) (SECNSA) 2015 On-going

2.7. Discussion of points 2.4 to 2.6

In total, 24 941 tons of foodstuffs were distributed throughout rural areas in 2008. It is difficult to determine the number of beneficiaries because of the fact that no targeting was done.

The 2012 response plan was coordinated by the Ministry of Family Affairs and implemented by the World Food Programme (WFP).

In 2014, the response plan was coordinated by the Executive Secretariat of the National Food Security Council (SECNSA). For the food assistance component, 618 395 persons were effectively assisted out of a target of 675 000 persons. With regard to the livestock rescue operation, the objective was 628 163 livestock units for needs assessed at 56 535 tons. Overall, 6,6% of the goal was achieved.

3. Institutional Arrangements

This section is based on institutional provisions in effect to manage interventions in the case of drought.

3.1. Existing national policies or legislation

 ARC initiative In 2012, the State of Senegal joined the African Risk Capacity Insurance Company (ARC) to strengthen its capacity to manage risks related to natural disasters, to adapt to climate change and to assist inhabitants who are vulnerable to the threat of food insecurity. In 2014 Senegal received a total of 16,5 million US dollars from ARC to provide assistance to 927 416 food insecure people and to purchase 14 839 tons of cattle feed which was sold at subsidised prices to livestock farmers.

 AGIR initiative In order to make the most vulnerable inhabitants more resilient, that is to strengthen their capacity to cope with the risk of various shocks, to respond effectively to shocks and to adapt in a sustainable manner, the State of Senegal joined the Global Alliance for Resilience - Sahel and West Africa (AGIR). The overall objective of AGIR is to reduce household food and nutritional vulnerability in a structural and sustainable manner.

 Emerging Senegal Plan Moreover, in the Emerging Senegal Plan (PSE), the State clearly declared its determination to develop national and regional contingency plans, promote the culture of disaster risk management and prevention, cope with major industrial accidents, establish an early warning system for natural disasters and improve safety during the transport of dangerous materials. The State is also considering improving natural disaster management with the establishment of an assistance and insurance mechanism, the creation of an emergency intervention fund and capacity building of role-players in civil protection.

In total, the State is making provision for 40 billion CFA francs to finance a storm water management project as well as a project relating to climate resilience and risk and disaster management. A project of 36.4 billion CFA francs together with the Integrating Climate Change Adaptation project for the sustainable development of the country; the integrated eco-system management project in Senegal and the project to consolidate and extend protected marine areas (PSE, 2014).

 Coordination de l’urgence In order to face a drought situation, the Government of Senegal elaborates end execute a response plan. In 2015, a national coordination commission overseeing the execution of the national response plan was established by the “arrêté primatoral” n°03379 of the 17 march 2015. The executive secretary of the national council for food security (SECNSA) was appointed as the coordinator of such commission. Roles and responsibilities of all parties have clearly been defined.

3.2. Existing assessment processes

. Type of evaluation Description of the process

Evaluation of the This evaluation was coordinated by SECNSA. It is usually carried out population’s nutritional in October and November. Data are collected by members of the status early warning system technical committee. The main tools used are the harmonised framework or teams sent to zones at risk (ZAR). The evaluation indicates the quantity of rainfall received per region, food insecurity status and agricultural production. These evaluations are always financed together with partners although this is not a sustainable mechanism. Estimate of the size of the This assessment is coordinated by the Ministry of livestock. The herd affected by a vulnerable core is estimated at 25% of the total livestock population. shortage of fodder The biomass availability assessment is conducted to determine the areas likely to receive assistance. This assessment is financed by the Senegalese State SMART (Standardised Type of nutritional survey carried out annually by the MSAS (Ministry Monitoring and of Health and Social Welfare) and/or the Unit to Combat Malnutrition Assessment of Relief and (CLM) which determines the levels of prevalence of malnutrition with Transitions) surveys representation at departmental or regional level. This assessment is financed by the Senegalese State with sometime the support technical and financial partners Analysis of PRN Every quarter the Nutrition Enhancement Programme (PRN) monitoring data undertakes active screening campaigns for acute malnutrition in children aged 6-59 months in 60% of the local communities of Senegal. This completely covers all areas that are most severely affected by acute malnutrition in Senegal. Such analysis is financed by the PRM

3.3. Contingency planning procedures for drought

3.3.1. Emergency plan coordination authority

In Senegal, SECNSA coordinates the drafting and implementation of emergency plans to respond to drought-related shocks and works closely with all national and partner structures involved.

3.3.2. Other stakeholders

In this task, SECNSA works in close collaboration with:  The Food Security Commission (CSA) which is in charge of activities related to the purchase and delivery of foodstuffs for inhabitants;  the Ministry of Livestock and Animal Productions which is responsible for the purchase and delivery of cattle feed as part of the livestock rescue operation;  the Unit to Combat Malnutrition (CLM) is responsible for implementing the PRN and acts in aspects related to screening and managing acute malnutrition at community level;  The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MSAS) undertakes passive screening and manages cases of severe acute malnutrition in health care facilities;  Regional Food Security Committees (CRSA) and Departmental Food Security Committees (CDSA) have respectively been established and are chaired by Governors and Prefects. These authorities provide support for implementing emergency plans at regional level;

 Technical and financial partners (FAO, WFP, UNICEF, Red Cross of Senegal, OXFAM, CARITAS, ACTED, CECI (Centre for International Studies and Cooperation), ACF (Action Against Hunger, etc.) provide support to the government in implementing emergency plans.

3.3.3. Needs assessment

Drought detection is done by means of an early warning system (EWS) which provides information on the rainfall situation and the status of vegetation and animals. All technical structures involved in food security are members of the EWS technical committee.

This analysis is usually supplemented by the results of the agricultural season monitoring missions in zones at risk (ZAR) as well as food security surveys carried out by SECNSA.

In 2014 the results of the rural survey on agriculture, food security and nutrition (ERASAN) served as substantiation for a food security analysis carried out during the national workshop on the harmonised framework which was held in November 2014. The needs have been estimated with the help of the results provided by this workshop. Henceforth, the harmonised framework will be the preferred instrument to evaluate needs with regard to assistance with food security.

The technical and financial partners (CILSS, FAO, WFP etc.) fully finance ZAR mission surveys and national workshops on the harmonised framework. However, SECNSA and some national structures are pooling their efforts to finance certain surveys as was the case during the ERASAN survey.

Almost all the needs assessments are coordinated by SECNSA: the EWS (Early Warning System), food security surveys, national workshops on the harmonised framework, etc.

With regard to the nutrition component, a needs assessment is done based on the prevalence of acute malnutrition identified according to the SMART 2014 survey undertaken by the MSAS and the number of children aged 6 to 59 months affected during active screening campaigns for acute malnutrition.

ARC payout Activities to be carried out Comments (in million USD) < 1 Food or food voucher The most vulnerable regions distribution identified by the harmonised framework 5 Food or food voucher The most vulnerable regions distribution identified by the harmonised framework 30 Food or food voucher The most vulnerable regions distribution? sale of cattle feed identified by the harmonised at subsidised prices and framework. implementation of acute The size of the sensitive core will be malnutrition screening and estimated. management activities The areas most affected by acute malnutrition will be identified by the 2015 SMART and affected populations will be estimated on the basis of prevalence.

Regardless of the amount received, a portion will be used to fund the operations of targeting of beneficiaries.

3.4. Drought response coordination mechanism

SECNSA is the structure responsible for coordinating the response plans which include ARC interventions.

The other parties are the CSA, the Unit to Combat Malnutrition (CLM), the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MSAS), the various technical and financial partners, the Ministry of Livestock and Animal Production (MEPA), the Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Planning (MEFP) and Regional and Departmental Food Security Committees (CRSA and CDSA), chaired by Governors, Prefects and Deputy Prefects.

The number of households requiring food assistance is determined by analysing food security using the harmonised framework tool. The Food Security Committee targets villages and neighbourhoods on the basis of well-defined criteria of vulnerability in each department which has been targeted. From this point on a targeting mission is organised by the national commission responsible for the response plan to supervise the targeting of households. Households are selected by village and neighbourhood assemblies facilitated and supervised by members of the National Commission, the Regional Food Security Committee (CRSA) and the Departmental Food Security Committee (CDSA).

Village and neighbourhood assemblies consist of the village/neighbourhood leader/delegate, the Imam, a youth representative, a women’s representative, etc. A targeting report would be drawn up, signed by all participants and approved by the administrative authority (Prefect or Deputy Prefect). The data are captured on smart phones and sent to SECNSA server where they are analysed.

In theory, an audit survey is carried out to correct for any inclusion mistakes. The final results of the targeting are then shared by SECNSA with all the stakeholders.

With regard to nutrition, targeting is done by means of two active screening campaigns for acute malnutrition carried out by the PRN as well as continuous passive screening in health care facilities.

3.5. Proposed financial arrangements and coordination of ARC payout

To avoid any difficulties with payouts noted during the 2015 implementation of interventions financed by ARC funds, the Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Planning (MEFP) will open an account with a commercial bank to receive the funds. An account manager will be designated by the MEFP.

Payments will be made directly to those entitled to them (service providers, suppliers, personnel, etc.) after completion and on submission of all substantiating documents approved and certified by the authority in charge of the operational structure and the Director of Civil Protection.

Account A special account opened in a commercial bank Account manager A manager designated by the MEFP Type of supervision The management of the account will be supervised by the Ministry of the Interior as well as by the Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Planning Will the account only receive funds from the ARC? Yes Destination of the funds in the account Financing of activities which are contained in the implementation plan

4. Risk Transfer Parameters

Coverage period 2015 Expected payout frequency Once Maximum payout Thirty million US dollars Risk transfer level 73% Estimated premium USD 3.6 million

5. Scenario Definition

In this section, four scenarios are defined on the basis of assumptions made about the rainy season and payouts received from ARC. It should however be mentioned that the ARC payouts depend mainly on rainfall. Thus, good rainfall is not necessarily synonymous with good agricultural production. Studies have clearly established that more than 40% of the variation in annual national crop yields depends exclusively on fluctuations in rainfall (Kandj, Verchot & Mackensen, 2005).

Scenario ARC payout Steps to be taken by the State

Scenario 1: No payout A food insecurity response plan is drawn up for all Normal year regions where there is persistent food insecurity. In particular, these are the regions of Kolda, Kédougou, Sédhiou, Ziguinchor, Matam, Tambacounda and Saint Louis (Podor department). The State will depend primarily on the support of its humanitarian partners to finance this response plan.

The PRN and MSAS will roll out their usual nutrition monitoring and acute malnutrition management activities. These activities will relate specifically to the regions of Matam, Tambacounda, Kédougou, Kolda, Sédhiou and Ziguinchor as well as to the Podor department. Scenario 2 : Low payout This scenario is undoubtedly the most realistic if one The severity considers the global advance of the rainy season of the (USD 2 million) characterised by cumulative rainfall that is higher or drought is in equal to normal rainfall, and favourable plant growth. the frequency The payout received would be less than two million range of once US dollars. It would be fully used by the State in every two implementing a national food insecurity response years to once plan. The financing gap would be made up by every five humanitarian partners. The regions of Louga, Kolda, years Kédougou, Sédhiou, Ziguinchor, Matam, Tambacounda and Saint Louis (Podor department) would be involved.

The PRN and MSAS will roll out their usual nutritional monitoring and acute malnutrition management activities. These activities will relate specifically to the regions of Matam, Tambacounda, Kédougou, Kolda, Sédhiou and Ziguinchor as well as the Podor department. Scenario 3 Average payout In this case, the response plan would include the frequency: grazing component. In total 20% of the payout would The severity (USD 5 million) be allocated to purchasing cattle feed for livestock of the farming areas (Louga, Matam) and reception areas for drought is in migrant livestock (Kaffrine, Tambacounda). the frequency

Scenario ARC payout Steps to be taken by the State

range of once The rest would be used to assist inhabitants suffering every six from food insecurity in vulnerable regions such as years to once Louga, Kolda, Kédougou, Sédhiou, Ziguinchor, every nine Matam, Tambacounda and Saint Louis (Podor years department) and to implement screening and management campaigns for acute malnutrition through the PRN and MSAS mechanisms. Scenario 4: High payout A large-scale national response plan will be The severity implemented. It will consist of three components: food of the (USD 30 million) assistance (60% of payout), cattle feed distribution drought is in (30% of payout) and nutrition (10% of payout) a frequency range of In-depth geographic targeting will be undertaken to greater than determine which departments and local authorities are once every the most affected by drought. Screening campaigns ten years for acute malnutrition and activities to manage it will be undertaken every two months.

5.1. Drought model scenarios

The regions listed in Scenario 1 are the most vulnerable. It is believed that certain categories of households will have difficulties in recovering from the drought of the previous year in spite of a good rainfall recorded in the next year. In March 2015, the harmonised framework projected the number of persons affected by food insecurity to be 503 293 (for June 2015). In addition, these districts are the most impoverished of the country: the incidence of poverty is 76,6% at Kolda, 71,3% at Kédougou and 68,3% at Sédhiou. The areas listed have a concentration of impoverished persons totalling some 1 358 885, i.e. 21,3% of the total number of impoverished persons in Senegal. Furthermore, the Matam region and the Podor department are areas which suffer from an almost permanent state of drought. For all these reasons, even if there should be no funding from the ARC, these areas will need support to combat persistent food insecurity

Scenario Regions ‘At risk’ Number of Comments people affected Scenario 1 Kédougou, 503 293 Kolda Matam, Saint-Louis (department of Podor), A food security survey will be Sédhiou, conducted in the month of October. It Tambacounda, will be followed by the analysis of Ziguinchor , food security through the national workshop of the harmonised framework in November 2015. These Scenario 2 Kédougou, 604 362 two evaluations will help to better Kolda refine areas at risk and to determine Louga the number of people affected, Madam, regardless of the scenario. Saint-Louis, Sédhiou, Tambacounda, Scenario 3 All regions except Dakar 1 015 016 Scenario 4 All regions 1 039 550

6. Intervention Details

Four interventions are planned, according to the scenario: food distribution, food voucher distribution, sale of subsidised cattle feed and screening and management of acute malnutrition.

Intervention Programme Comment Nature Description Name Food C Ad hoc activity Food distribution to the most This distribution vulnerable households living in intervention areas at risk of food insecurity will be performed, regardless of the scenario Cash transfer A Ad hoc activity Cash is transferred to previously Scenarios 3 targeted most vulnerable and 4 households Sale of H Regular scalable Cattle feed will be purchased and Scenarios 3 subsidised activity made available to the Departmental and 4 cattle feed Sales Committees. Screening and E, G Regular scalable Active and passive screening of Scenarios 3 management activity acute malnutrition among children and 4 of acute aged 0-59 months and women of malnutrition reproductive age (15-49 years)

6.1. First intervention: Food distribution

Name of intervention: Food distribution

Brief description of the intervention

An estimation of the number of beneficiaries and their needs is coordinated by SECNSA. The results are forwarded to the CSA for capture and delivery. Households will be targeted. The quantity of foodstuffs received per household is calculated on the basis of 10 kg per person. The size of beneficiary households will have a ceiling of 10 people. In other words, the maximum quantity of foodstuffs that a household can receive is 100 kg (2 bags of 50 kg). Substantiating the choice of intervention: The free distribution of foodstuffs constitutes a powerful means of support to enable vulnerable households to cope with shocks resulting from drought. Cereals such as rice and traditional cereals (millet, maize and sorghum) are the basic foodstuffs eaten by Senegalese households. The average consumption for traditional cereals is 72 kg/person/year compared to 64 kg/person/year for rice (CILSS, 2004, p. 52). The distribution of rice will get priority because this cereal does not require much processing before it can be eaten.

The intervention will make it possible for rural households in the most vulnerable regions (see above) to ensure their survival while protecting their livelihoods.

The gender aspect is always prioritised in targeting beneficiary populations. Female heads of households, handicapped heads of households or those suffering from chronic disease are always prioritised.

The distribution of foodstuffs is easy to implement. Purchasing and delivery of rice takes barely 45 days if the funds are available. During the rice purchasing period, targeting can be done within a maximum period of one month. All these operations can be completed within a period of two months. Distribution only takes 10 days if rice is available.

Consequently, the intervention complies in all respects with the principle criteria for eligibility defined by ARC and which are related to sensitivity to timing, safeguarding the livelihoods of beneficiary households and the 6 month implementation period. Implementing partners

Name of Name of Telephone Email address Responsibilities Partner contact at number Organisation organisation Directorate Abdoulaye (221) 33 [email protected] - ARC Focal point ; for Civil NABO 889 39 00 - Interface between ARC Protection and Government

Executive Ali Mohamed [email protected] Intervention Coordinator Secretariat of called Séga (221) (targeting, food the National CAMARA 33 865 30 distribution, Food Security 35 monitoring/evaluation, Council communication, (SE/CNSA) coordination activities, etc.) Food Security Intendant [email protected] Purchasing and delivery Commission Colonel Aly (221) 33 of foodstuffs (CSA) MAR 821 61 91

SECNSA

Overall National, regional, coordination of CSA departmental and the entire Purchasing of local technical intervention foodstuffs committees – geographic targeting

Assemblies of villages and neighbourhoods- household targeting

Beneficiaries

Organisation chart for the main structures directly involved in the intervention.

Management of funds With the authorisation of the Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Planning, the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security will open a special account in a secondary national bank to receive the funds paid out by ARC.

An account manager will be appointed by the financial department in accordance with regulations on public accounting and project management.

Payments will be made directly to service providers, suppliers, personnel etc. after the service has been rendered and on submission of all substantiating documents duly approved and certified by the operational structure authority and the Director of Civil Protection. Unit cost The unit cost varies according to the quantity of food received by each beneficiary. In this case, each person will receive a monthly quantity equivalent to 10 kg of rice. Whatever the scenario, the unit cost is estimated at 4,310.625 CFA or USD7.5.1 This cost includes the acquisition of rice, at an average price of 300 FCFA handling, transportation, targeting, monitoring and evaluation, the communication intended for the beneficiaries (375 FCFA for each beneficiary). Targeting of beneficiaries

What type of targeting The targeting of the regions, departments and communes will be done mechanism and criteria will by the national committee in charge of the response plan on the basis be used? of the survey results and the harmonised framework. The CDSAs will be targeting villages on the basis of the vulnerability criteria: agricultural situation (production and rainfall); production of biomass; occurrence of perils (epidemics, floods, fires, locust infestations, etc.); occurrence of bushfires (frequency, area burned); zoo-sanitary situation (upsurge of outbreaks of animal diseases).

In each targeted village, the selection of recipient households will be through a village Assembly, assisted by members of the national committee, the CRSA or THE CDSA. The households targeting will be based on criteria of vulnerability to food insecurity. The following categories of households will be preferred, ceteris paribus (other things being equal) :

 households with difficulties to provide three meals per day ;  households experiencing a shock (drought, death of a contributor, fire, floods, etc.);  households with an irregular and low income source;  households headed by a disabled person or someone who is chronically ill ;  households headed by a poor widow or a poor person over 60 years. After the holding of the village Assembly, a targeting report (PV) would be prepared. It would be approved by the administrative authority prior to being captured on Smartphone. The data and the original PV will be all sent to SECNSA for processing and control. Who will do the targeting? Targeting will be coordinated by SECNSA. It will be participatory and inclusive. How will the targeting be About 2% will be levied on funds disbursed by ARC to finance the paid for? targeting activities. Is there any process of A survey is planned to check the vulnerability of households actually verification of targeting? targeted by the village assemblies. It also happens that the administrative authority, on the basis of knowledge of the population operates a first level of verification of the lists submitted to it by the assemblies of villages. When will the targeting take If payment takes place in January of the year 1, targeting will start in place in relationship to the February of the same year. ARC payout?

Does this intervention Yes. require to go through procurement?

1The exchange rate is USD 1 = 574.75 CFA francs. This is the cost to be applied to the transfers according to the Website of the Central Bank of the West African States (BCEAO or CBWAS) http://www.bceao.int/-Cours-des- devises-contre-Franc-CFA-.html, accessed October 10, 2015 at 6:35pm.

Who is responsible for The CSA is responsible for the procurement procurement?

What are the timelines 45 days for restricted tendering around procurement?

Please list all the items to be procured and the possible procurement sources:

Item Unit Source(s)

Rice Metric ton - Senegal River Valley - Imports from India – bought on local market

Suppliers deliver the rice (bought on local or international markets) to the main distribution points of the targeted local communities. The CSA is responsible for overseeing that the quantities actually delivered by suppliers accord with the quantities previously estimated. Distribution committees which are established by Prefects and Deputy Prefects undertake the distribution of rice to households which receive prior notification through the village leader or neighbourhood delegate.

If money is transferred, the implementation partners will sign a contract with a mobile telephone operator. The telephone numbers of beneficiaries are collected and checked during targeting and messages are sent to the beneficiaries to go to the approved distributors to collect the sums allocated. To carry out this operation, the State depends on the experience of partners such as the WFP, the Senegalese Red Cross and Caritas. Implementation monitoring

Data related to delivery and distribution are regularly collected and forwarded to the central authorities by regional and departmental SECNSA officials.

Monitoring visits are organised by SECNSA to ensure that distribution operations proceed smoothly.

Does the implementing partner have a The chosen approach is based on three components of the monitoring system in place? If yes, evaluation: please describe this system in as much detail as possible. Is it paper-based? a formative evaluation which consists of assessing The information gets keyed into an MIS whether goals set for foodstuff distribution operations system? Excel? (targeting, purchasing and delivery, distribution, disbursement, etc.) are being gradually achieved. Weekly Who can access the information? meetings are organised with all stakeholders for this purpose.

a diagnostic evaluation which will allow for changes to be made (quotas, needs) depending on changes in the context in which the intervention is being implemented. For example, in 2014, the partners had revised their ambitions downward and SECSNA quickly readjusted the quantity of rice per person to make up for this gap.

a summative evaluation will be done once the intervention has been completed. This overall evaluation of the intervention will be carried out with all stakeholders, coordinated by SECSNA, in order to measure the impact of the intervention, learn lessons, identify bottlenecks and work out recommendations for the next time. The report is shared with all stakeholders and any other interested user.

If an existing program, has monitoring occurred in the past? What criteria is The program was carried out in the past. Assessments were used to monitor one program or not to made. The reports are available conduct monitoring Have any evaluations of the program been detailed in the past?

Please detail the data or bits of The information to be collected is relative to: information to be collected by the  the quality of targeting. It is appropriate to assess the monitoring system. error rate of inclusion, the compliance with the criteria, the conformity of the quotas allocated prior to the targeting;  the quality of the distribution: this would involve evaluating compliance with the planned quantities;  the operations turnaround time;  the efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention;  the statement of account (account balance).

Who is responsible for collecting this Information will be collected and analysed by SECNSA, with information? Who is responsible for the technical support of all the partners concerned. analysing the information? Regarding this specific intervention, From the ARC Fund, if the amount exceeds USD5 million. how is M&E paid for? Otherwise, it will be financed by SECNSA with the support of partners. What measures have been introduced SECNSA acquired a functional server when the 2015 to ensure the timely and accurate response plan was implemented. The department also collection of monitoring data? acquired smart phones and has 104 officials throughout all the regions and departments of the country. These officials have some means of transport (cars or motorbikes) and have been well trained in the techniques of gathering information through smart phones.

This device makes it possible to collect all required information accurately to ensure that the intervention is properly monitored/evaluated.

This year also a specimen report (using Excel) was designed and made available to all operational partners in order to provide SECNSA with a summary report on all activities that have been conducted. What is the timing around M&E in From the notification of the possibility of a payout to the end relationship to the ARC payout? of the products distributions.

To gain a better understanding of how this activity fits into the ARC payout timeline, please insert an implementation timeline for this activity. Please use GANTT chart format where you list the activities in the Activity column and either highlight in colour or use “X’s” to indicate the month(s) in which the activity occurs. In the last column enter the organization or person who is responsible for carrying out the activity.

Implementing

Body Step 2016 2017 O N D J F M A M J J A S Identification of SECNSA

drought conditions Confirmation of a SECNSA

drought ARC payout MEFP

announced Contingency plan SECNSA

adopted Needs assessment SECNSA carried out to validate the departments

Targeting of SECNSA households for intervention Procurement, CSA foodstuffs purchasing and delivery Start of the effective SECNSA

distribution Monitoring/Evaluation SECNSA

6.2. Second intervention: Cash transfer

Name of intervention : Cash transfer Brief description of the intervention: The distribution of cash to previously targeted households. Each household will receive an amount equivalent to 5 000 CFA francs per person. The number of persons per household will be limited to 10, i.e. a single household will not receive more than 50 000 CFA francs. As opposed to food distribution, this activity will be implemented in areas where the market is functioning Substantiating the choice of intervention: The advantage of a cash transfer is the simplicity of implementing it insofar as it does not require a lot of work involved in procurement, transport costs, handling or guarding of goods, etc. The risks related to inflation or stock-outs are lower in comparison with the distribution of foodstuffs. Moreover, this intervention allows households suffering from drought to have access to a more varied basket of foodstuffs. Like the distribution of foodstuffs, a cash transfer complies in all respects with the main eligibility criteria defined by ARC. To this end the cash will allow vulnerable targeted households to guarantee their food security and therefore protecting their livelihoods. The activity likely to be to be implemented within six months period following the payout reception Implementing partners

An account manager will be appointed by the financial department in accordance with regulations on public accounting and project management.

What type of targeting See first intervention. mechanism and criteria will be used? Who will do the targeting? See first intervention.

How will the targeting be See first intervention. paid for? Is there any process of See first intervention. verification of targeting? When will the targeting take See first intervention. place in relationship to the ARC payout?

Does this intervention The intervention will require going through procurement. National money require going through transfer institution will be involved. procurement?

Who is responsible for Executive Secretariat of the National Food Security Council, under the procurement? control of the Public Procurement Regulation Agency.

2The exchange rate is USD 1 = 574.75 CFA francs. This is the cost to be applied to the transfers according to the Website of the Central Bank of the West African States (BCEAO or CBWAS) http://www.bceao.int/-Cours-des- devises-contre-Franc-CFA-.html, accessed October 10, 2015 at 6:35pm.

What are the timelines The call for tenders is launched following confirmation of the amount to be around procurement? received from ARC. A period of two months will be necessary to fulfil the contract.

Information on procurement A contract will be signed with a national money transfer agency (INTA). Once the list of beneficiaries has been thoroughly checked, it will be forwarded to the Director of Civil Protection (DPC) and the INTA. The DPC will give the account manager authority to transfer the necessary amount (including costs) into INTA accounts. All beneficiaries would have to go to a distributor approved by the INTA to receive the proposed amount. Implementation monitoring Does the implementing partner have a The approach is identical to that adopted for the first monitoring system in place? If yes, intervention. please describe this system in as much detail as possible. Is it paper-based? The information gets keyed into an MIS system? Excel?

Who can access the information?

If an existing program, has monitoring occurred in the past? What criteria is This is not an existing program. used to monitor one program or not to conduct monitoring Have any evaluations of the program been detailed in the past?

Please detail the data or bits of The information to be collected is relative to: information to be collected by the  the quality of targeting. It is appropriate to assess the monitoring system. error rates of inclusion, the compliance with the criteria, the conformity of the quotas allocated prior to the targeting;  the quality of service provided by INTA : this would involve verifying that the amounts distributed to households are complied with ;  the operations turnaround time;  the efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention;  the statement of account (account balance).

Who is responsible for collecting this See first intervention. information? Who is responsible for analysing the information? Regarding this specific intervention, See first intervention how is M&E paid for?

What measures have been introduced See first intervention. to ensure the timely and accurate collection of monitoring data?

Monitoring & Evaluation schedule See GANTT chart below.

SECNSA

National, regional, Overall Service departmental and coordination of providers local technical the entire intervention committees – Cash transfer geographic targeting

Assemblies of villages and neighbourhoods- household targeting

Beneficiaries

Organisation chart of the main structures directly involved in the intervention.

Implementing

Body Step Year 1 Year 2 O N D J F M A M J J A S Identification of SECNSA

drought conditions Confirmation of a SECNSA

drought ARC payout MEFP

announced Contingency plan SECNSA

adopted Needs assessment SECNSA carried out to validate the departments

Targeting of SECNSA households for intervention Procurement SECNSA/ARMP Start of the effective SECNSA

transfer Monitoring/Evaluation SECNSA

6.3. Third intervention: Cattle feed distribution

Name of intervention: Livestock Safeguard Operation (OSB) Description of the intervention This would involve purchasing cattle feed from suppliers and making it available to departmental committees which will sell it to pastoralist at subsidised prices.

Justification The OSB will make it possible for targeted farmers to rescue the vulnerable core (gestating females, diseased animals, etc.). This type of livestock urgently needs to be rescued for the survival of the herd. The intervention complies in all respects with the ARC eligibility criteria. To this end the cash will allow sensitive nucleus to guarantee their food security. The activity as in the past is implemented within six months period following the payout reception Name of Name of Telephone Email address Responsibili Partner contact at number ties Organisati organisation on

Director of Dame SOW +221777404271 [email protected] Coordinatio of n Livestock and Animal Production

In the case of a payout, funds will be transferred from the dedicated special account to the suppliers ‘account, after services have been rendered. The MEFP services will carry out all the necessary controls, in accordance with the management rules of public funds. Define the Unit Cost (cost per beneficiary) to undertake this activity for one (1) month.

The unit cost under Scenario # 1 : USD 11.02 (only if the scalable project is underway) Targeting for this activity

What type of targeting There is not a harmonised targeting methodology for this mechanism and criteria will intervention. The Departmental Sales Committees sell the cattle be used? feed to stock farmers at subsidised prices. Identification criteria vary from one Department to the other. These criteria are generally stock farmers’ business card, immunization records and physical recognition. Who will do the targeting? The Departmental Committees.

How will the targeting be This requires no funding. paid for? Is there any process of There is no verification process implemented. verification of targeting? When will the targeting take The geographical targeting is done following the need assessment. place in relationship to the Targeting of outlet is done one month after the payout. ARC payout?

Does this intervention The intervention requires going through procurement. require going through procurement?

Who is responsible for The Ministry of Livestock and Animal Production (MEPA) procurement?

What are the timelines In collaboration with the Prime Minister’s Office, the MEPA undertakes around procurement? a restricted consultation of all the cattle feed manufacturers. In general, three or four companies are usually interested in the operation. A quota is allocated in proportion to their production capacity, and put in place within a well-defined time period.

Please list all the items to be procured and the possible procurement sources:

Item Unit Source(s)

Cattle Feed Metric ton Local Market

Suppliers transport the cattle feed to the level of warehouses located in the most decentralized level of the Department. Does the implementing partner have Yes a monitoring system in place?

If an existing program, has monitoring This is an ongoing programme. occurred in the past? What criteria is used to monitor one program or not to The MEPA will verify the identification of bags of feed in conduct monitoring Have any order to better control them. evaluations of the program been detailed in the past? At a national level, managers from the MEPA will carry out oversight throughout the country by means of surveillance

and monitoring visits.

At regional and local levels, monitoring will be done by local administrative authorities and professional livestock breeders’ organisations (OPE) by virtue of local committees created for this purpose.

In terms of selling, the administrative authorities will oversee the selling and will regularly submit reports, as well as monitoring proceeds from the sales with the finance body.

A monitoring/evaluation plan will be set up with, as the indicator, the actual number of beneficiary animals as compared to the targeted number.

Please detail the data or bits of The monitoring data collected includes the number of information to be collected by the beneficiaries who have purchased, the amount monitoring system. distributed, the date of distribution, the quantity received, the amount cashed, the amount deposited in Bank, etc..

Who is responsible for collecting this Departmental livestock inspectors. information? Who is responsible for analysing the information?

Regarding this specific intervention, There is no funding for this monitoring. how is M&E paid for?

What measures have been A matrix is developed for monitoring. The data is collected introduced to ensure the timely and and sent to the administrative authorities which will pass accurate collection of monitoring them up. As a follow-up to the response plan, sometimes data? SECNSA collects this data from regional and departmental livestock inspectors. What is the timing around M&E in There is not a defined schedule. relationship to the ARC payout?

MEPA FINANCIAL BODY (Monitoring and Coordination) (Allocation of funds and payments to the mills)

GOVERNORS (Supervision and coordination MILLS at regional level) (Responsible for supplying the feed)

TRANSPORTERS DEPARTMENTAL (COUNTY) (Responsible for the COMMITTEES distribution of feed to warehouses at departmental and rural community levels) RURAL COMMITTEES (Receipt of cattle feed and delivery to breeders association)

BENEFICIARIES

The following organisation chart shows the relationships between the different structures involved.

Implementing

Body Step Year 1 Year 2 O N D J F M A M J J A S Identification of MEPA drought conditions Confirmation of a MEPA drought ARC payout MEFP announced Contingency plan SECNSA adopted Procurement MEPA/ARMP Sale of cattle feed MEPA Monitoring/ MEPA/SECNSA

Evaluation

6.4 Fourth intervention: Screening and management of acute malnutrition

Name of the intervention: Screening and management of acute malnutrition Brief description of the intervention

As far as the food component is concerned, the active screening for acute malnutrition in the population aged from 6 to 59 months in the targeted areas, is carried out by measuring the mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) at the beginning of the first and second quarters of 2016 (January to April). These large scale activities will identify children suffering from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) and severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and allow them subsequently to be managed. Managing (treating) cases of MAM at community level according to standard norms and protocols (distribution of dry and wet rations, early childhood learning initiatives, outreach/communication activities, vitamin A and iron supplements, anti-parasite treatment) ; Onward referral for children suffering from SAM to health centres with letters for the referral (handed to the mother or caregiver of the child) and their management at community nutrition centres after onward referral ; Outreach/communication activities aimed at households and mothers of children aged 0 to 24 months for proper management (treatment) of the children in cases of malnutrition.

Substantiating the choice of intervention: Acute malnutrition occurs quickly after a shock at the level of the affected populations, and it primarily affects children aged from 6 to 59 months. If Not managed, acute malnutrition moves towards more severe forms leading to the death of untreated children*. Acute malnutrition screening is relatively easy at the community level, through the use of the MUAC tape. The costs for children with moderate acute malnutrition are also relatively light in comparison with those of the management of the children with severe acute malnutrition. Acute malnutrition increases the burden of the disease at the level of families, communities and health structures and leads to increased mortality among the population of children aged from 6 to 59 months. The Nutrition Enhancement Programme (PRN) platform makes it especially easy to implement active screening campaigns for malnutrition and the Ministry of Health (MSAS) mechanism ensures continuous management of severe cases. As a result, most of the costs associated with the implementation of this intervention are already covered by the State of Senegal and its other partners. Implementing Partners . Name of Name of Telephone Email address Responsibilities Partner contact at number Organisation organisation Directorate Abdoulaye (221) 33 889 [email protected] - ARC Focal point ; for Civil NABO 39 00 - Interface between Protection ARC and Government

Unit to Abdoulaye Implementation (221) 33 869 01 [email protected] Combat KA and monitoring 99 Malnutrition of malnutrition (CLM) management activities

An account manager will be appointed by the financial department in accordance with regulations on public accounting and project management.

Payments will be made directly to service providers, suppliers, personnel etc. after the service has been rendered and on submission of all substantiating documents duly approved and certified by the operational structure authority and the Director of Civil Protection. Unit Cost The unit cost per targeted beneficiary (total number of children aged from 6 to 59 months) for the nutrition component to carry out these activities for one month is 60.21 CFA francs. For the six months, the unit cost is 361.29 CFA francs for the total number of targeted children. The unit cost per beneficiary directly cared for (children suffering from MAM and SAM) amounts to 1, 1197.42 CFA francs for the six months. This cost does not include the beneficiaries of the planned communication activities.

Targeting of beneficiaries

What type of targeting Targeting will be done on the basis of active screening campaigns for mechanism and criteria will malnutrition and will be passive at the level of health units. It will be based on be used? the measurement of the mid-upper arm circumference by using the MUAC tape according to standard norms and protocols in nutrition. Screened children will be classified and treated according to their degree of malnutrition (moderate or severe).

Who will do the targeting? Screening campaigns will be carried out by the stakeholders of the PRN.

How will the targeting be Targeting will be financed from the ARC funds. paid for? Is there any process of Quality assurance of screening activities will be ensured by the supervision verification of targeting? missions of the Unit to Combat Malnutrition (CLM) and the MSAS. When will the targeting take Targeting activities will be carried out over the period February-May of the place in relationship to the payout year. ARC payout?

The intervention does not require going through procurement

How the implementation monitoring of this intervention will be carried out?

Does the implementing partner have a The PRN monitoring system will be involved in carrying out monitoring system in place? If yes, these activities. Monitoring/supervision activities are carried please describe this system in as much out at the level of villages/neighbourhoods, local authorities, detail as possible. Is it paper-based? district, regions and at national level by officials assigned to The information gets keyed into an MIS these tasks. system? Excel? The information collected at different levels, are aggregated in a Excel application that performs a first level of analysis Who can access the information? which allows feedback to the different levels. All stakeholders and partners may have access to the generated information. If an existing program, has monitoring occurred in the past? What criteria is The PRN was established in 2003 and has conducted used to monitor one program or not to numerous activities to promote nutrition and combat conduct monitoring Have any malnutrition. Therefore there is a proven experience in evaluations of the program been monitoring and evaluation of the nutrition support activities detailed in the past?

Please detail the data or bits of  These indicators are the following: information to be collected by the - Number of children screened monitoring system. - Number of children suffering from MAM - Number of children suffering from MAS - Number of children suffering from MAM managed - Number of children suffering from MAS referred - Number of children suffering from MAM who have recovered after care

Who is responsible for collecting this The information will be collected and analysed by the CLM information? Who is responsible for and the MSAS. analysing the information? Regarding this specific intervention, This component will be financed by the CLM outside the how is M&E paid for? ARC funds.

What measures have been introduced The mechanism of the CLM and the PRN allow for rapid and to ensure the timely and accurate accurate feedback across the different levels by the use of collection of monitoring data? different agents and the Internet.

What is the timing around M&E in These activities will be ongoing. With or without a payout relationship to the ARC payout?

Local communities Health districts CLM (Monitoring and (Monitoring (Monitoring and facilitation of the compliance with coordination) intervention) norms and protocols)) Community Implementation Agencies (Implementation and guidance of community role-players)

Community role- players (Service delivery))

Beneficiaries

The organisation chart above shows the relationship between the partners involved and the CLM

Implementing

Body Step 2014 2015 O N D J F M A M J J A S Identification of SECNSA

drought conditions Confirmation of a SECNSA

drought ARC payout MEFP

announced Contingency plan SECNSA

adopted Needs assessment CLM carried out to validate the departments

Screening campaigns CLM Managing cases of CLM

malnutrition Monitoring/Evaluation CLM

7. Monitoring & Evaluation Framework and Plan

This section focuses on the results of the monitoring and evaluation framework for all interventions included in this operational plan. The aim is to help measure the performance of the roll out of the ARC contingency plan.

Result Indicator Auditing/verification Risks/assumptions tools

Delivery of ARC -Payout received Notification by ARC funding Beneficiaries -Rate of inclusion errors Verification survey Influence of properly targeted Targeting report politicians

The necessary -Quantity of rice available CSA report Delays in disbursing quantity of in targeted communities funds; foodstuffs is Monitoring reports purchased and drawn up by regional Difficulties associated delivered (10 kg x and departmental with transport; number of targeted officials of SECNSA beneficiaries) Availability of foodstuffs on the market;

Inflation Targeted -Number of beneficiaries Report on monitoring beneficiaries have who have received visit received their foodstuffs;

quota of foodstuffs -Quantity of foodstuffs Report on final (10 kg/person) distributed distribution Beneficiaries have - Number of beneficiaries Report of monitoring Disruptions in the received the who have received cash; visit INTA network proposed amount - Amount distributed (5 000 CFA Final distribution report francs/person) The committees -Quantity of cattle feed Monitoring report have received the sold; allocated quota of Final report cattle feed

Cattle feed is sold -Selling price by Monitoring report Non-compliance with at the subsidised departmental committees set prices price initially Final sales report decided Active and passive - Number of children Activity report None screening for acute screened malnutrition is - Number of children carried out suffering from MAM (Moderate Acute Malnutrition) - Number of children suffering from MAS (Severe Acute Malnutrition) - Number of children suffering from MAM managed - Number of children suffering from MAS referred

Acute malnutrition - Number of children Activity report None management suffering from MAM who activities are have recovered after care implemented Improved •First ‘contact’ with targeted Activity report Adequate and implementation beneficiaries within 120 credible structures, time for assistance days of the ARC pay-out as described in the to targeted received Operations Plan, are households in place Improved •Activity completed within Activity report implementation 180 days time for ARC activities

8. Programme Risks and Assumptions

The risks set out in the following table are of such a nature as to impede or prevent the proper execution of proposed activities.

Risk Description of the Mitigation strategy Risk probability impact Currency exchange High This skews Request ARC Ltd to consider the losses (the dollar rate evaluations and exchange rate in effect in the can change between creates country's central bank on the date on the time when needs misunderstandings which the implementation plan is are evaluated and between the lodged.

Risk Description of the Mitigation strategy Risk probability impact when interventions are beneficiaries and implemented) those in charge of interventions Effect of inflation on the High The proposed Reducing initial quotas. For example, products to be quota cannot be if 10 kg/person was initially planned, distributed between the bought, the after inflation there may only be 8 or time of the needs number of 9 kg/person. evaluation (Final beneficiaries will Implementation Plan, be reduced or the FIP) and the actual quantity will be purchase of the reduced products

The interventions will Low The inhabitants Ensure scrupulous compliance with not reach the most will become all criteria during screening; vulnerable inhabitants frustrated and Ensure that distribution operations ARC interventions are properly carried out by the will be discredited various committees Delays in the High This delays the Pay ARC funds into an account with disbursement of funds delivery of a streamlined and audited interventions and disbursement mechanism leads to non- compliance with ARC eligibility criteria Delays in the Low This delays the The Ministry of the Economy, disbursement of ARC delivery of Finance and Planning can deposit funds interventions and funds in advance into the account leads to non- that was opened compliance with ARC eligibility criteria

9. Definition of Standard Operating Procedures

This part focuses on the Standard operating procedures (SOPs) which represent a set of tasks that will need to be completed before, during, and after a payout. The objective is to ensure that the ARC Operations Plan (OP) and Final Implementation Plan (FIP) are implemented accordingly and that funding and benefits pass on to beneficiaries within the ARC-defined timelines. These procedures form the basis of any post-payout audit.

Responsible Turnaround SOP Name SOP Details Timing time (days) # Officer Type Min Max Informational and Planning Processes 01 Monitor food security Intense monitoring of ARV and other EW tools to Mody DIOP Ongoing 30 45 Task and other livelihoods track severity and deterioration of food security (SECNSA) levels situation

02 Update contact Confirm contact details for TWG members, Massamba As soon as 02 04 Task databases implementing partners and other staff involved in DIOP (AN possibility of the rollout of a disaster risk management plan ARC) payout is identified 03 Mobilize the ARC TWG responsible for contingency Abdoulaye 01 02 Task planning NABO

Decide most likely scenario Abdoulaye 04 07 Decision NABO (DPC) Decide on most likely regions or districts to receive Ali Mohamed 03 07 Decision ARC funding called Séga As soon as CAMARA possibility of Decide on most likely interventions to fund given the Abdoulaye payout is 04 14 Decision FIP development and scenario NABO identified submission Estimate the number of vulnerable people targeted Mody DIOP 02 03 Task per targeted area

Draft FIP, including detailed budget Mody DIOP 10 21 Task

Obtain internal government approval for the FIP Abdoulaye As soon as FIP 07 21 Approval NABO has been drafted Submit FIP to ARC Secretariat for approval Massamba Not less than 30 01 02 Task DIOP days before

Responsible Turnaround SOP Name SOP Details Timing time (days) # Officer Type Min Max anticipated payout 04 FIP re-submission (if Integrate feedback and resubmit FIP if not approved Massamba As soon as FIP 05 07 Task necessary) by the ARC Board DIOP Review Process decision has been communicated 05 Coordinate Needs Work with SECNSA responsible for coordinating the Mody DIOP 05 07 Task Assessment larger country drought response [enter name here] to get results from the needs assessment

06 FIP adjustment (if Following the needs assessment adjust the FIP Mody DIOP Following the Task necessary) estimates regarding number of vulnerable people needs targeted and how ARC funds will be used assessment

Financial Processes 07 Notification to financial Inform National Treasury and/or the Ministry of the Abdoulaye 30 days before 02 04 Task institution to receive Economy, Finance and Planning of imminent NABO payout ARC funding payout and verify all the bank details.

08 Notification to Inform implementing partner(s) and or procurement Abdoulaye 04 07 implementing partners of sources of possible funds transfer and verify the NABO potential funds transfer bank details

09 Verify arrival of ARC Ensure that a dedicated account for ARC funds Momath NDAO 03 06 funds national account exist Fanta Sakho Verify that off cycle transfer is possible if ARC SECK funds go to national treasury 10 Funds transfer to Transfer funds to implementing agencies and/or Momath NDAO After payout 07 10 Task implementing partners procurement sources in timely manner Fanta Sakho SECK Ensure that the implementing institutions will Momath NDAO 03 07 Task cooperate with independent financial auditors by maintaining all the relevant financial records open Fanta Sakho SECK

Responsible Turnaround SOP Name SOP Details Timing time (days) # Officer Type Min Max Operational Processes 11 Inform other implementing partners of the possibility Massamba As soon as 03 05 Task of payout DIOP possibility of payout is identified Inform county and sub-county structures of Massamba As soon as 03 05 Task DIOP possibility of Coordination possibility of payout payout is identified Inform existing programme managers of possibility Massamba As soon as 04 07 Task of scale up (if selected intervention is scalable) DIOP possibility of payout is identified 12 Identify additional beneficiaries and update Mody DIOP As soon as 10 14 Task beneficiaries’ lists payout is Targeting and confirmed registration Assess completeness of list of beneficiaries in each Mody DIOP As soon as 02 03 Task identified region, department (county) or district payout is confirmed 13 Identify responsible actors for the procurement of Massamba As soon as 02 03 Task goods / supplies DIOP (vivres) possibility of payout is Aba LEYE identified Procurement (if required (OSB) by intervention selected) Verify that procurement sources and procedures Massamba As soon as 04 07 Task are functional DIOP (vivres) possibility of payout is Aba LEYE identified (OSB) 14 Confirm that food transfer distribution/ payment Mody DIOP 10 days before 07 14 Task systems are in place and functional and can handle payout Verify functionality of additional caseload (in case of scalable existing systems intervention)

Responsible Turnaround SOP Name SOP Details Timing time (days) # Officer Type Min Max 15 Develop clear communication channels among Mody DIOP As soon as 03 07 Task implementing partners payout is Communication confirmed 16 Identify additional M&E personnel and training Mody DIOP As soon as 05 10 Task needs for a possible payout possibility of Monitoring and payout is Evaluation identified Ensure implementing partners are familiar with ARC Mody DIOP As soon as 07 10 Task M&E requirements (monthly and final payout is implementation report) confirmed

Ensure that implementing partners submit monthly Mody DIOP Ongoing during 07 10 Task progress reports payout

Submit monthly monitoring reports to ARC Massamba Ongoing during 04 07 Task Secretariat DIOP payout

Submit final implementation report to ARC Massamba 14 21 Task Secretariat DIOP

Review lessons learned and make decisions about Abdoulaye Following the 07 14 Decision changes for next payout/intervention. NABO implementation

Please complete the ARC Standard Operating Procedure timeline based on your country’s seasonal calendar and EW/CP processes. To do so: i) Add any additional SOPs that are specific to your country; ii) Replace the numbers in the month column with those months related to your seasonal calendar and ARC insurance contract; (iii)Either highlight in colour or use “X’s” to indicate the month(s) in which the activity occurs.

Month SOP Name # - 2 -1 Harvest +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 (November) Monitor food security and livelihood levels

FIP development

Update contact databases

FIP submission

FIP re-submission (if necessary)

Coordinate and execute needs assessment

FIP adjustment (if necessary)

Notification to financial institution to receive ARC funding

Notification to implementing partners of potential funds transfer

ARC Payout

Funds transfer

Inform existing programme managers of possibility of scale up

Identify responsible actors for the procurement of goods/supplies

Verify that procurement sources and procedures are functional

Inform implementing partners of possibility of payout

Inform county/sub-county structures of possibility of payout

Identify additional beneficiaries and update beneficiary lists

Assess completeness of beneficiary lists in each identified district/county

Develop clear communication channels among implementing partners

Identify independent external financial auditor

Identify additional M&E personnel and training needs for a possible payout

Ensure implementing partners are familiar with ARC M&E requirements

10. Bibliography

ANSD (National Agency of Statistics and Demography) (2013). Rapport définitif du Recensement général de la Population, de l'Habitat, de l'Agriculture et de l'Elevage. (Final General Population, Habitat, Agriculture and Livestock Farming Census Report). World Bank. (2014). Sénégal: Evaluation des risques dans le secteur agricole (Senegal: Risk Assessment in the Agricultural Sector) CILSS (Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel). (2004). NORMES DE CONSOMMATION DES PRINCIPAUX PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES DANS LES PAYS DU CILSS (CONSUMPTION STANDARDS OF MAIN FOODSTUFFS IN THE CILSS COUNTRIES). Kandj, S., Verchot, L., & Mackensen, L. (2005). Climate Change and Variability in the Sahel Region: Impacts and Adaptation Strategies in the Agricultural Sector. PSE (2014). Plan Sénégal émergent (Emerging Senegal Plan).

11. Annexes

Annex 1: Supporting documents

Annex 2: Budget

Table: Budget allocation for a USD 30 million payout (coverage)

Description SHARE COSTS/USD/CFA FRANC

USA 18,000,000

Food Assistance (foodstuff and/or cash) 60% 10,345,500,000 CFA francs

USD 3,000,000

Malnutrition 10% 1,724,250,000 CFA francs

USD 9,000,000

Livestock Safeguard Operation 30% 5,172,750,000 CFA francs

Coordination, supervision Chargeable to budget items of Monitoring & Evaluation and audit activities

USD 30,000,000

Total 100% 17,242,500,000 CFA francs