The report from the administrative affairs chamber of the Court of Auditors 2023 controlling the management of the Internal Trade Directorate for the 2019-2021 financial years reveals a lack of reliability in the mechanisms for monitoring stocks and prices.
For good reason, the monitoring of measuring instruments is an important activity for controlling distribution circuits. Articles 4, 9 and 21 of Decree No. 60-415 of November 23, 1960 establish the initial verification, periodic control and monitoring of measuring instruments. These actions are carried out by the metrology division and the decentralized services at the regional level. However, despite the implementation of training activities in the control of measuring instruments as part of the metrological compliance support project, it was noted that these were insufficient. Indeed, it appears from the evaluation report carried out within the framework of the aforementioned project that “the agents of the Metrology Division continue to intervene directly at the regional level while those in the regions have actually benefited from metrology training sessions “. This report deduces the lack of implementation of these metrology skills at the regional level.
Interviews with heads of regional services corroborating these findings also highlight as explanatory factors the mobility of staff, the insufficient number of training as well as the scientific nature of metrology which most often require a basic scientific profile facilitating the assimilation of this material.
Consequently, the development of the control of measuring instruments requires regular training of Dci agents selected according to their profile and who will be assigned to the regional service level. This lack of reliability noted especially for retail trade is aggravated by the lack of display or labeling of prices which is intrinsically linked to this level of commerce. In addition, it was noted the absence of an information mechanism between the DFDS and the DSCS which is responsible for issuing receipts for import declarations of food products and essential foodstuffs.
These DIPA receipts constitute a Source of information allowing us to know in real time the quantity of food products imported by traders.
For the specific case of sugar, the Ministry in charge of Trade, in conjunction with stakeholders in the sector, sets each year a quantity of sugar to be imported to cover the production gap of the Senegalese Sugar Company (CSS). This gap is covered by the import of sugar by CSS and other importers. The quantities to be imported are determined by import quotas granted by the Ministry of Commerce. An examination of this system reveals a lack of formalization of the mechanism for issuing DIPA receipts for sugar and the risks of deregulation of the sugar market. Consequently, better coordination between these two divisions appears necessary for monitoring the stocks of imported consumer goods and would allow the DFDS to be more effective in its stock monitoring action.
