Senegal unveils recovery plan to rely on domestic funding
The plan, aimed at stabilizing the finances of a West African nation that began producing oil and gas last year, comes with Senegal facing financial challenges and scrutiny over debt misreporting.
The country is grappling with billions of dollars in hidden debts from the previous administration, which led to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) freezing its loan programme.
"We have identified more than 4.6 trillion CFA francs ($8.16 billion) in available resources between 2025 and 2028, without increasing the state's debt," Sonko said during a presentation in the capital Dakar.
The plan to cut public spending and boost revenues aims to help narrow the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2027 from 12% in 2024.
Its measures include merging and downsizing state institutions, which the government estimates could save around 50 billion CFA francs, and scrapping tax exemptions in certain sectors, particularly in the largely untaxed digital economy. He cited online gaming and mobile money as examples.
Taxes on tobacco will increase to 100% from 70%, while visa fees will be introduced for visitors from non-African countries and African states that require visas for Senegalese citizens. Visa fees are projected to generate 60 billion CFA.
Sonko said the government expects to raise 884 billion CFA francs from the renegotiation of contracts, particularly in the oil and mining sectors, and an additional 200 billion CFA from the renewal of telecom license.
To attract investment, the government will ease access to land titles and raise the age limit for imported vehicles – a key demand from Senegal's diaspora.
Senegal will also seek external partners to recycle existing assets and continue to mobilise resources on the domestic market in local currency. Foreign currency debt must target sectors such as hydrocarbons, oil, gas and mining, Sonko said.
He said the reforms would also enable the government to better target subsidies and social programmes to meet the needs of the population.
The IMF has for years called on Senegal to curb what it describes as expensive and inefficient energy subsidies, which in March it estimated as amounting to up to 4% of GDP.
"The problem with these subsidies is that it's not the vulnerable households that benefit from them. Most of these subsidies, they go to the wealthiest households," IMF mission chief Edward Gemayel told Reuters in an interview in Dakar in March.
He said the subsidies should be gradually phased out with cash compensation given to vulnerable families, adding that it would be important to communicate clearly to Senegalese why the cuts are necessary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Should we be preparing for World War Three? Shock poll reveals 86% of Brits don't have enough supplies to last ONE DAY in a crisis as government urges citizens to stockpile tinned food, batteries and torches
The Government has urged Brits to stock up on basic supplies as a shock poll has revealed 86 per cent of us don't have enough to last us even one day in a crisis. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden has advised people to stockpile tinned food, batteries and torches in case of an emergency. However, the poll by Savanta found only 14 per cent of Brits have enough supplies in their homes to get them through just one day of a crisis. It also found 48 per cent of Brits do not have reserves of bottled water to use in the event of a power cut that cuts off gas and water supply. Just 24 per cent of us have an FM radio, only 55 per cent own a torch and 66 per cent have enough non-perishable food to last three days. Whilst giving The Mirror's political editor a tour of The National Situation Centre - the government's top-secret crisis control room - Mr McFadden said there needs to be a 'more candid' conversation about the potential risks Britain is facing. 'It's sensible to have a couple of torches, a battery or a wind-up radio, perhaps some spare batteries, a couple of bottles of water. 'We saw what happened to Spain and Portugal earlier this year, when power went out for about 24 hours. 'If something like that happens it does make sense to have that kind of thing at home.' He said this advice was 'proportionate' and reassured people that they do not need to start constructing nuclear bunkers in their gardens. The National Situation Centre, also known as SitCen, was set up in 2021 after the Covid pandemic highlighted how under-prepared the UK is for coping in an emergency situation. It was modelled on the Situation Room inside the White House, where President Donald Trump was recently pictured conducting talks over Iran. SitCen was built in a classified location near Cobra - where the Prime Minister holds emergency meetings. Inside, analysts pour over data and make meticulous calculations to help ministers respond to a range of potential crises - from future pandemics to terror attacks. This autumn, SitCen will be used as a hub for a drill which will prepare the country for another pandemic. It will see a trial for emergency alerts sent to people's phones warning them of a risk to human life - the second time the technology has been tested. Millions of Brits will receive the practice alert at around 3pm on September 7. Mr McFadden said 'hopefully' we will never find ourselves in a situation where they would need to deploy a real emergency alert, but it is 'useful to have' just in case.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Times letters: ‘Working class' internships for civil service
Sir, Your editorial rightly ridicules the plan for civil service internships to be restricted to 'working-class students' to make Whitehall more representative ('Normal People', Aug 2). We seem to be going full circle through ideological, inverted snobbery. More than 40 years ago, when applying to join the army, I was asked by every prospective regiment what my father did for a living (it was assumed my mother did not work). Later, when I applied to leading firms of surveyors, I faced the same question, but at least usually about both parents. It was wrong then and is even more so now, as society has moved on. In my professional career I have recruited graduates, interns, placement students and apprentices for more than 30 years. I have always selected the best people for the job, regardless of perceived 'class' or any other characteristic such as ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. That should be the case in every walk of life. Diversity has been proven to produce more successful teams, and should emerge naturally from a genuinely open recruitment process. Our government can do better than taking us back to the 1980s. Richard Petty East Molesey, Surrey
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Tuition fee rise would be better than a stealth tax
Saddling a generation of young earners with a sharp tax by stealth is a cowardly political trick that harms universities too ALAMY B ritain's universities are an uneasy mix of contradictions. Many are operating near the brink of financial insolvency, despite the fact that, Luxembourg and America aside, UK universities bring in more money per student than anywhere. A number are among the world's most esteemed institutions; yet, there is a growing perception that the labour-market premium of even elite British undergraduate degrees has declined in recent years. In 2025 a record number of domestic 18-year-olds applied for places at college but despite this robust internal demand, higher education has become hooked on a supply of lucrative overseas students. In fact, so many universities are negligently allowing their degree courses to be used by foreign nationals as a back door into the UK asylum system that the government is now cracking down. Universities will be penalised if more than 5 per cent of their international students, many of whom take advantage of taxpayer-funded accommodation and loans, drop out of study having secured their student visa. That is an appropriate step but it will not fix the underlying financial precarity that makes universities desperate for foreign students in the first place. That is the fault of the ill-conceived student loan system, which seems no longer fit for purpose. It is an irony that when MPs voted in 2010 to increase tuition fees to £9,000, a key concern of the ensuing debate was that poorer students would be put off studying by the prospect of acquiring vast debts. In fact, the reverse happened. The number of young people pursuing higher education boomed. And the proportion of university-bound students from disadvantaged groups, for instance those eligible for free school meals, has risen robustly in parallel with their peer group. Still, although the present student loan system has thankfully not deterred poorer students from entering education, it has had other, less foreseeable, but clearly damaging effects. Chief among them is that the student loan system has become a graduate tax in all but name. While back in 2010, it was taken for granted that a large proportion of debt held by low-earning graduates would inevitably be forgiven by the state, changes to the repayment scheme effective from 2023 have fundamentally altered that model. Graduates in England now begin paying off their loans on any earnings over £25,000. The interest on these loans, calculated by reference to the unorthodox RPI measure of inflation, is eye-watering: it stood at 8 per cent in August 2024. The time-frame over which repayment takes place has also been extended, from 30 years to 40. The result is that the average student in England, who leaves university £53,000 in debt, faces a steep additional tax on most of their earnings over their working lives. Because of the steep interest rates, low earners are most likely to be shackled with repayments that never even make a dent in the debt's principal sum. These graduates will find it comparatively difficult to buy a house, become economically mobile, save into pensions and start families. Saddling a generation of young earners with a sharp tax by stealth is a cowardly political trick that harms universities too. Instead of trying to recover the true cost of education, there is a strong case that headline tuition fees should simply be allowed to rise. That they have been kept artificially low, at close to their 2010 level for over a decade, is one reason many universities now face financial ruin. As well as increasing internal competition and making the sector more dynamic, uncapping tuition fees would help to make students more immediately sensitive to the financial trade-offs involved in pursuing further education. At 18, students are young, their whole adult lives still ahead of them: all the more reason to inform them honestly of the costs and benefits of the first truly consequential financial choice they will make.
