VZCZCXRO1910
PP RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMA RUEHMR RUEHPA RUEHRN RUEHTRO
DE RUEHDK #0601/01 1441226
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231226Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY DAKAR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0539
INFO RULSDMK/DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/FAA NATIONAL HQ LONGMONT WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0848
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0724
RUEHZO/AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFRICOM STUTTGART GE
RHMFIUU/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RHMFIUU/CDR USTRANSCOM INTEL CELL SCOTT AFB IL
RHMFIUU/CDR USTRANSCOM TCJ2 SCOTT AFB IL
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC//INR//
RHMFIUU/CDR USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL// SOJ2/HSE//
RHMFIUU/COMSOCEUR VAIHINGEN GE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RUZFNAI/NASIC WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH//DXOA/TAAO//
RUZFMXI/AMC INTEL CEN SCOTT AFB IL
RHMFIUU/COMUSNAVEUR NAPLES IT
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RULWAAA/USSTRATCOM INTEL DIRECTORATE OFFUTT AFB NE//OP322//
RHMFIUU/HQ PACAF HICKAM AFB HI//HSE//
RHMFIUU/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL//HSE//

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 DAKAR 000601 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR PM/ISO-PPOPE, AF/W, AF/EPS, EB/TRA, DS/DSS/ATA 
DOT FOR OST 
BRUSSELS FOR FAA/AEU 
ROME FOR TSA/JHALINSKI 
 
                                              E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAIR ECON EFIN SG
SUBJECT: ASECNA EVICTED FROM SENEGAL'S AIRPORTS - NEW POLICY FOR 
USG? 
 
REFS:  A. 07 DAKAR 2376, B. 07 STATE 106799 
 
¶1.  This is an action request for PM/ISO and AF/W; see paras 10-11. 
 
¶2.  Summary:  On May 10, following the previous day's announcement 
by Minister of Civil Aviation, Farba Senghor, the government of 
Senegal (GOS) took over operations of Senegal's airports, 
essentially kicking out the regional air navigation services 
provider ASECNA (Agency for Navigation Security in Africa and 
Madagascar).  Senegal created a new National Agency for Airports to 
control, manage, and collect all airport fees (except for 
overflight) to "feed" the government treasury.   This move needs to 
be evaluated within the context of the Chicago Convention and may 
eliminate the requirement for U.S. military aircraft to pay for 
navigation, landing, parking, and other similar fees.  ASECNA 
authorities in Dakar noted that it is up to individual countries to 
decide whether to have ASECNA run its airports or not.  However, 
they criticized Senegalese officials for rejecting the Dakar 
convention on the distribution of airport royalties.  Other civil 
aviation experts expressed concern about whether the GOS could 
competently manage Dakar LLS Airport in a cost effective manner with 
such an abrupt change.  Senegal continues to propose opting out 
completely from ASECNA, including from the Agency's navigation and 
radar services, which raises additional future safety concerns.  End 
summary. 
 
WE WANT OUR NAA 
--------------- 
¶3.  Effective May 10, Senegal took back from ASECNA the management 
of its airports and local air traffic control.  ASECNA authorities 
refused to attend the "signing ceremony" for the transfer of the 
airport management due to a last minute change in the draft by 
Senegal on the distribution of aeronautic royalties and the location 
for dispute settlements between the two parties.  Minister Senghor 
was not deterred and stated that the government's "decision to 
control the management of our airports - which is part of our 
national sovereignty - is irrevocable, and it is in perfect 
compliance with article 10 of the Convention of Dakar signed in 
1974."  [Note:  The Dakar Convention gives authority to member 
countries to decide whether ASECNA will run their airports or not. 
Currently Senegal is the 10th out of the eighteen member countries 
to manage its own airports.  End note.] 
 
¶4.  The Senegalese authorities have established a new National 
Agency for Airports to collect fees, manage and upgrade airports 
facilities, train local technicians and "feed" the national 
treasury.  Senghor claimed that Senegal lost as much as CFA 50 
billion (USD 119 million) per year due to ASECNA's lack of 
transparency and inadequate and inefficient distribution of 
resources generated from different fees collected from Senegalese 
airports.  "We have the ambition to develop and modernize our 
airport infrastructure, so we want to know where the money collected 
from our airports goes.  We are not pulling out from ASECNA now, but 
we strongly want to control and manage the resources from our 
airports including landing, parking, navigation, and other related 
fees," stated Senghor.  [Note:  As outlined in Ref A, Senegal 
originally threatened to quit from ASECNA in November 2007, but 
suspended that decision and called for an international audit - 
agreed to by ASECNA - before taking a final decision.  End note.] 
 
¶5.  All did not go smoothly during the transition.  The day 
following Minister Senghor's announcement of the withdrawal, several 
police/gendarmes were posted around the control tower to screen the 
access which was open only to Senegalese technicians.  Senghor said, 
"we don't need 'foreigners' here we have a competent and dedicated 
 
DAKAR 00000601  002 OF 003 
 
 
Senegalese to operate our tower and we are strongly committed to pay 
their salaries including all the benefits previously paid by 
ASECNA."   Because it is a regional body, a number of air traffic 
controllers who used to work at the Dakar airport were from other 
member countries. 
 
¶6.  ASECNA operated Dakar's LLS airport on a commercial basis and 
derived all of the airport's operating revenue from the fees it 
charged.  Other than taxes, ASECNA did not return any revenue to the 
Senegalese treasury.  In theory, profits were to be reinvested to 
upgrade airport facilities and equipment, but Senegalese officials 
claimed that ASECNA did not fund any major investment project in 
Senegal, and instead used resources collected from Senegalese 
airports to support investment in other member countries' airports. 
 
ASECNA DOWNPLAYS SENEGAL'S DECISION 
----------------------------------- 
¶7.  An official from ASECNA confirmed to Econ staff that "member 
countries have the freedom to have ASECNA run their airports or not; 
this is not the most important role of ASECNA."  He added that a 
country's withdrawal of its national infrastructures' management 
from ASECNA has not yet impacted significantly on the latter 
financial resources, noting that ASECNA's operating budget uses only 
4.5 percent of the revenues generated from the fees collected at 
airports while the remaining resources are spent on infrastructure 
projects within the member countries.  He stated that in the past, 
Mali and the Central African Republic took back control of their 
airports, but difficulties in managing the day-to-day operations 
have forced these two countries to again entrust the management of 
their airports to ASECNA. 
 
¶8.  Instead of attending the May 10 "signing ceremony," ASECNA 
management sent a letter to Senegal's Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
criticizing the Senegalese authorities for breaking Articles 3 and 6 
of the Dakar Convention in a desire to collect all airport fees, 
except for over-flight fees, and to select the court of Dakar for 
dispute settlement.  [Note:  The Dakar Convention grants ASECNA the 
collection of overflight, landing and navigation fees and the 
selection of an international arbitration body for dispute 
settlement.  End note.] 
 
¶9.  ASECNA was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Dakar, but 
has its main financial operations and its President of the Board of 
Directors based in Paris.  ASECNA controls airspace of 16 million 
square kilometers and manages more than 500,000 aircraft movements 
per year.  Out of the eighteen member countries, only eight (Benin, 
Burkina, Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, 
Mali, Niger, and Madagascar) have maintained agreements with ASECNA 
to manage and run their airports. 
 
ACTION REQUEST:  NEXT STEPS ON THE U.S./SENEGAL CIVIL AVIATION 
RELATION 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
¶10.  Now that the government of Senegal operates and runs its 
airports, they should, in principal, now be considered government, 
rather than commercial, facilities.  This provides the USG an 
opportunity to revisit its civil aviation agreements with Senegal, 
and assert stated USG global policy of not paying fees charged to 
U.S. state aircraft for air navigation, overflight, landing, 
parking, or other fees at government airports, in conformity with 
the Chicago convention, and as outlined in Ref B. 
 
¶11.  Post recommends the Department pursue an inter-agency 
discussion on this development and advise on how to proceed with 
Senegalese authorities if asked to make payments on future airports 
 
DAKAR 00000601  003 OF 003 
 
 
fees for U.S. state aircraft. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
¶12.  With its decision to take control of its airports, Senegal has 
the opportunity to improve the security and safety and define clear 
lines of authority, responsibility, and communication for civil 
aviation in the country.  That, however, will require the effective 
utilization of revenues from airport services, something that might 
prove difficult given Senegal's overall serious budget problems.  It 
will also be interesting to see if the new National Agency maintains 
management of the airport, or if it is offered as a concession. 
There are already rumors that the GOS has struck a deal with Dubai 
Ports World to gain another lucrative contract in Senegal.  USG 
agencies should also be prepared to engage with Senegal as it 
decides whether or not to opt out of ASECNA's air safety services 
for navigation and radar control. 
 
SMITH