Sub-Saharan Africa - On the path to more sustainable debt?

N°02

January 2013

SuB-SAHARAN

aFRICA A F D ’ S S U B - S A H A R A N A F R I C A D E PA RT M E N T N E W S L E T T E R

Editorial

On the path to more sustainable debt?

I

n the 1990s and 2000s, the campaigns to cancel or reduce poor countries’ debts made the headlines. At the time, they criticized the economic and social impact of debt and these countries’ relationship of dependence on the OECD member creditor countries. The topic now seems to belong to a distant past and has almost been forgotten. Yet it did reveal the unsustainability of the debt for many countries and led to the cancellation initiatives in the 2000s.

Today, as a result of the rapid changes in global balances and the financial crisis, industrialized economies’ dependence on globalized financial forces or on emerging economies’ monetary policies regularly makes the headlines in the very same press.

However, debt sustainability in Sub-Saharan African countries is more than ever a daily issue for donors. Indeed, African economies’ investment needs have never been so high and the balance between public investment and debt capacity has never been monitored so closely.

For economic and population growth to be sustainable in Sub-Saharan African countries, significant investment needs must be financed in order to guarantee permanent access to health, education, drinking water, energy and transport for communities. The World Bank estimates that the additional needs in Africa to finance infrastructure upgrading alone amount to USD 310bn for 2010-2020. The bulk of these investments will be financed by external resources, either through public investment or public-private partnerships.

Donor grants are limited and scarce and unfortunately do not have the power to multiply as they are shared. Consequently, they are primarily earmarked to support public social policies for health and education in the most fragile countries. Their amounts fall short of financing needs for infrastructure and external debt continues to be the main source of financing for the development of Sub-Saharan African economies.

The overarching challenge therefore lies in implementing debt policies tailored to the characteristics of borrowing countries and to their priorities.

While the growth of African economies has benefited from the increases in commodity prices for a decade now, it remains marked by a potential instability in export revenues. An external shock and rapid re-indebtedness would have a long-term adverse impact on countries’ capacities to implement public policies promoting sustainable and redistributive growth.

Similarly – and the press headlines we mentioned confirm this – the budget situation in the North has now changed.

Taxpayers in these countries would today find it very difficult to accept a public policy for equal living conditions if it does not demonstrate its effectiveness and sustainability. In this respect, a new phase of massive debt cancellation would run the risk of seriously undermining public support for this solidarity policy.

Donors and borrowers have established a groundbreaking framework for monitoring risks of debt distress, assessing sovereign risk and adapting the terms of loans allocated to the poorest countries.

Following a first issue devoted to post-crisis Côte d’Ivoire, this latest issue of Sub-Saharan Africa seeks to present the fundamentals of this framework and how they are actually applied in actions to finance development.

Yves Boudot

dIRECTOR OF AFD’S AFRICA DEPARTMENT

02

06

07

REPORT

FOCUS ON ACTIVITY

AFRICAN agenda

Manageable debt and sustainable development

AFD’s sovereign loans

1st quarter 2013

leREPORT dossier

manageable debt and sustainable development

MANAGEABLE DEBT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES TODAY HAVE A RELATIVELY LOW LEVEL OF EXTERNAL PUBLIC DEBT. THIS HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. TODAY, DONORS AND BORROWERS ENSURE THERE IS A MANAGEABLE RE-INDEBTEDNESS IN THESE COUNTRIES TO FINANCE PUBLIC POLICIES THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, IN A CONTEXT OF STRONG ECONOMIC GROWTH.

Africa’s sovereign debt, from crisis to the sustainability framework Sustainable financing for the development of African economies involves a fragile balance. Donors and borrowers have been marked by the debt crises of the 1980s and today share the concern of striking a balance between huge financing requirements and the need to preserve countries’ long-term debt sustainability. A fresh debt crisis would, for many years to come, undermine the dynamics at work on the continent – a source of much hope – and the budget situation of creditor countries would also no longer allow a new round of massive debt cancellation.

F

ollowing the runaway events of the 1970s, which led to the debt crisis in the late 1980s, external debt in Sub-Saharan Africa has fallen markedly over the past decade. In addition to factors such as the favorable external conditions from which the continent has benefited for about fifteen years now and the macroeconomic and financial reforms implemented by most countries, much of this trend results from the debt alleviation from which African countries have benefited under the HIPC initiative or ad hoc Paris Club treatment. Since 1994, Sub-Saharan Africa’s external public debt has thus been divided by four in proportion to GDP. In 2010, it stood at 20% of gross national income and has attained the average of developing countries.

The external debt service has been divided by three and in 2010 accounted for less than 5% of exports of goods and services.

THE HEAVILY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES (HIPC) INITIATIVE In 1996, the donor community launched the HIPC initiative in response to the fact that the debts of a number of very poor countries had become unsustainable and compromised both their growth and capacities to fight against poverty. The aim was to reduce the external debt burden of the thirtynine eligible countries, including thirty-three in Sub-Saharan Africa, to a sustainable level.

In addition to the resonance that this initiative has had through its scale and the number of countries concerned, it stands out from the debt treatment which countries

sub-saharan africa - n°2

experiencing payment difficulties previously benefited from in several ways. First of all, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank have taken part in the process. Furthermore, the cancellations have concerned the debt stock and not only flows. Finally, in exchange for the debt cancellations, the governments in question have pledged to set up poverty reduction programs.

In practice, once an eligible country reaches the “decision point”, i.e. the first stage in the process, it formally enters into an interim period, which allows it to benefit from a treatment on the interest of its debt. It consequently pledges to undertake a number of reforms and to comply with the criteria defined to reach “completion point”, which will allow it to benefit from the reduction in its debt stock.

In 2005, the HIPC initiative was completed with the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), which provides for the cancellation of the entire debt stock of the World Bank, IMF and African Development Bank.

Finally, additional bilateral initiatives have extended the HIPC and MDRI processes, such as France’s Debt Reduction-Development Contract (C2D).1 Sixteen years on from the launch of the HIPC initiative, thirty-four of the thirty-nine countries have reached completion point. Two countries are in the interim period (Comoros and Chad). Three countries have not yet reached decision point (Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan). Debt cancellations have amounted to a total of just over

02

TRENDS IN EXTERNAL PUBLIC DEBT 90

% of national incomel

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Years

0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Sub-Saharan Africa Developing countries Source : Global Development Finance, World Bank

DEBT SERVICE (AS A % OF EXPORTS OF GOODS SERVICES) % 30 25 20 15 10 5 Years

0

77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

Sub-Saharan Africa Developing countries

1 The C2D is a post-HIPC bilateral debt conversion mechanism.

It involves giving the beneficiary country a grant for an amount equivalent to the instalments paid in order to finance development and poverty reduction programs.

AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER

le dossier Manageable debt and sustainable development report

Africa’s sovereign debt, from crisis to the sustainability framework

USD 120bn and have reduced the public external debt of these countries by 90%, from USD 140bn to USD 15bn. The easing of financial constraints and the budgetary leeway this has created have, for example, allowed these countries to increase their social expenditure.

However, some countries continue to have relatively high debt ratios, either because they were heavily indebted towards creditors that are not Paris Club members (China, Arab countries, former Soviet Union countries), or because their economic basis and/or exports are too narrow.

THE DEBT SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK In order to prevent an excessive re-indebtedness of low-income countries (post-HIPC or not), the donor community has established a framework, which aims to make borrowing countries and their creditors responsible and promote a certain amount of discipline in recourse to sovereign debt.

The IMF and World Bank use – and make available to authorities – a ratio projection tool for countries’ long-term external debt.

Countries are classified into three categories of debt distress risk according to thresholds that depend on their management quality: low (“green light” countries), moderate (“yellow light” countries) or high (“red light” countries).

These levels of risk pose constraints on and determine the conditions for multilateral and bilateral donor operations and lending.

A minimum 35% grant element (i.e. the difference between the market rate and the rate allocated) is required for all sovereign financing. Contrary to popular belief, all donors - including emerging donors like China - are obliged to respect these concessionality requirements. Otherwise, the IMF may suspend its program and the World Bank may tighten its financing conditions. In practice, the opaqueness of the latter’s fisub-saharan africa - n°2

nancing methods means the actual lending conditions lack clarity.

FINANCING DEVELOPMENT: BETWEEN FRAGILE BALANCES AND MASSIVE NEEDS African economies have now regained substantial budgetary leeway, which has allowed them to hold up well against the deterioration of the global economy since 2009. In some cases, reserves accumulated over the decade have even made it possible to conduct economic recovery policies, which was previously unheard of.

Most African countries now use their budgetary margins to borrow again and finance substantial needs, particularly for infrastructure, the lack of which today clearly hinders the development and competitiveness of economies. For example, the World Bank estimates that USD 93bn a year will be required over the next ten years to partly reduce some of the continent’s infrastructure gap.

However, sovereign debt continues to be in a fragile situation in a number of African countries. Thirteen out of the thirty-nine countries classified under the DSF currently show a low risk of debt distress, fourteen a moderate risk and twelve a high risk. Only eleven African countries that have reached completion point under the HIPC initiative show a low risk. Today, a certain degree of caution can generally be seen in re-indebting post-HIPC countries. However, some countries are on particularly rapid pathways to renewed debt. While the continent benefits from dynamic growth, budgetary leeway has nonetheless still not recovered its pre-2009 level and budget balances risk being put under heavy pressure if there is a prolonged spell of sluggish global demand.

Special attention must also be paid to the domestic debt of these countries; African countries’ public debt was for a long time mainly external. Furthermore, the analysis of debt sustainability is based solely on this

03

variable to define the risk of countries falling into debt distress. Yet today, we are witnessing developments in the structure of African countries’ debt, with an increasing share of domestic debt. This is a positive development, as it gives more depth to financial markets, but this debt – which is contracted on far less favorable terms – places a considerable burden on public finances.

Vanessa Jacquelain eCONOMIST IN AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT

90% of the external debt of HIPC African countries cancelled

“Only eleven African countries that have reached completion point under the HIPC initiative show a low risk”

AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER

Manageable debt and sustainable development

leREPORT dossier

Debt and sovereign risk: long-term perspective Public debt ratios have been significantly reduced in Sub-Saharan Africa thanks to substantial debt cancellations.

Should it be concluded that the risk of several of these countries not repaying all or part of their debt – the sovereign default risk – has been reduced by as much? A low level of debt does not a priori signal a lower risk of crisis in the medium term. Consequently, and beyond the Debt Sustainability Framework, how should sovereign risk in Sub-Saharan Africa be assessed today?

ecent research on an historical approach

to sovereign crises provides a better understanding of the process involved in triggering these crises.

OBSERVE SOVEREIGN CRISES OVER THE LONG TERM The interest of this type of approach lies in the nature of sovereign crises. Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) highlighted the fact that these crises often occur during debt cycles that last several decades. The most recent one, which lasted from 1970 to 2010, provides one example (see graph p.2), since a period of rapid borrowing preceded a debt reduction phase as a result of internal and external macroeconomic factors. The latter often took place through cancellations, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The cycle that began in the 1970s is indeed the first to concern this group of countries.1 Furthermore, Sturzenegger and Zet telmeyer (2006) demonstrated that these cycles occur frequently on a historical scale. The authors identify eight such cycles between 1800 and today. The analysis of the succession of these cycles makes it possible to identify undetectable regularities over a shorter timescale.

Among the patterns observed by Reinhart and Rogoff (2009), the most striking is that during the economic emergence process in countries, they are highly exposed to the risk of being subjected to sovereign debt crises (see graph below). Indeed, these countries then tend to repeatedly default on their external debt. The authors use the term “serial default” to describe such trends. This phenomenon, which concerned developed countries up until 1800, is the norm for developing and emerging countries. For example, Argentina has experienced seven sovereign debt crises since it gained independence in 1816; the last one occurred in

sub-saharan africa - n°2

2001. Only a handful of emerging countries have managed to avoid this recurrence. However, the significant reduction in the likelihood of repeated sovereign crises generally only occurs following extremely long periods without default.

In addition, the authors link the behavior of serial defaulters to a phenomenon known as “debt intolerance”. Indeed, in the 1980s, countries subject to repeated default on all or part of their external debt regularly experienced payment difficulties with external debt ratios regarded as being low according to developed countries’ standards (less than 40% of GDP). These countries would also appear to take on relatively higher volumes of debt than other countries.

The strong persistence of “serial default” behavior led the authors to seek the underlying determinants of sovereign crises. Consequently, two possible causes have been suggested to explain the recurrence of sovereign default and debt intolerance. According to Reinhart and Rogoff (2009), the recurrence of sovereign defaults can be explained by the vulnerabilities of institutional structures and the political system.

An alternative approach maintains that the reasons behind debt intolerance are to be found in countries’ economic structure, particularly in their intrinsic vulnerability to macroeconomic shocks (Catão and Kapur, 2006).

WHAT IMPLICATIONS FOR SOVEREIGN RISK TRENDS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA? The analyses above suggest that the idea by which the low average debt ratio in SubSaharan Africa necessarily requires a limited level of sovereign risk should be put into perspective. It is firstly noted that the low debt ratios seen in the 1970s did not prevent the outbreak of sovereign crises in the 1980s.

The increase in debt ratios and countries’ payment difficulties basically arise as a result

04

of two types of vulnerability: the exposure of economies to shocks and certain institutional and political vulnerabilities (Brooks et al., 1998). Despite the significant transformations experienced by Sub-Saharan African countries, these structural vulnerabilities would not necessarily appear to have disappeared.

Historical experience highlights the continuing importance of the stakes related to the question of sovereign risk in the countries in the region. Qian et al. (2010) show that out of a sample of countries for which data from between 1800 and 2008 is available, 70% of countries that have encountered payment difficulties have experienced a new sovereign debt crisis in the twenty following years. In most Sub-Saharan African

EXTERNAL PUBLIC DEBT: SHARE OF THE 66 COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENT SINCE 1800 IN DEFAULT OR BEING RESTRUCTURED % of countries in default or having their external debt restructured 60 50 40 30 20 10 Years

0

1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

R

Most Sub-Saharan African countries only gained independence in the 1960s and were therefore not able to borrow prior to this period.

1Ȁ

AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER

lereport dossier

Manageable debt and sustainable development

Debt and sovereign risk: long-term perspective countries, the resolution of sovereign debt crises is recent. The debt cancellation programs began in the late 1990s and are still ongoing in some countries. Consequently, controlling risks associated with countries’ re-indebtedness remains a major challenge for the next ten to twenty years.

FROM THE DSF TO SOVEREIGN RISK ASSESSMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICa The IMF and World Bank established the Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) to control the risk associated with the re-indebtedness of low-income countries. The conclusions of this tool directly influence the financing arrangements of several donors. A low risk assessment for unsustainable debt (green light) allows the State to borrow from public donors; conversely, this possibility is limited when this risk is considered to be higher. This mechanism consequently ensures that donors do not further burden a debt trajectory, which has already deteriorated, through new loans.

It should, however, be noted that an assessment showing a low risk of unsustainability does not mean that the structural vulnerabilities have disappeared. The materialization of these vulnerabilities can lead to a rapid increase in the risk of unsustainability.

Indeed, the financing needs of Sub-Saharan African countries are often high and difficult to reduce. In addition, these countries remain free to contract new loans (particularly in local currency) from creditors that do not recognize the DSF.

variations in the debt ratio, including for periods as short as five years. These countries also tend to experience payment difficulties with relatively low debt ratios. These are key elements for analyzing debt ratios and their trends: despite low debt ratios, a very vulnerable country’s sovereign risk remains high, particularly in the medium-long term.

Reducing sovereign risk ultimately involves countering countries’ structural vulnerabilities. In this respect, development assistance - particularly in Sub-Saharan African countries that are dependent on this source of financing - can play an essential role.

70% 70% of countries that have encountered payment difficulties have experienced a fresh sovereign debt crisis in the twenty years that followed

REFERENCES Brooks, R., M. Cortes, F. Fornasari, B. Ketchekmen, Y. Metzgen, R. Powell, S. Rizavi, D. Ross et K. Ross (1998), “External Debt Histories of Ten Low-Income Developing Countries: Lessons From Their Experience”, IMF Working Paper, WP/98/72.

Catão, L. et S. Kapur (2006), “Volatility and the Debt-Intolerance Paradox”, IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 53, N°2, 195-218.

Qian, R., C.M. Reinhart et K. Rogoff (2011), “On Graduation From Default, Inflation and Banking Crises: Elusive or Illusion?”, dans NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2010, Vol. 25, p. 1-36. D. Acemoglu et M. Woodford eds.

Reinhart, C.M. et K.S. Rogoff (2009), This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Bastien BEDOSSA PROJECT MANAGER IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BANKS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES DEPARTMENT Christophe COTTEt

ECONOMIST IN AFD’S

Reinhart, C. M., Rogoff K. S. et M. A. Savastano (2003), “Debt Intolerance”, Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, Vol. 34, p.1-74.

Sturzenegger, F. et J. Zettelmeyer (2006), Debt Defaults and Lessons from A Decade of Crises, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

RESEARCH DEPARTMENT

It is therefore necessary to make a distinction between the conclusions of the DSF and a sovereign risk assessment. The analysis of factors of structural vulnerability, such as a country’s exposure to economic and political shocks, its payment record or the longterm growth rate, is the starting point for the sovereign risk assessment. A vulnerable country is indeed likely to experience wide

sub-saharan africa - n°2

05

AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER

activity

Sub-Saharan africa

AFD’S FRAMEWORK FOR SOVEREIGN LOAN OPERATIONS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA AFD primarily uses available grants (EUR 186m in 2012) to support the development of social sectors in the most fragile countries on the continent. The sovereign loan activity (EUR 755m in 2012) meets countries’ substantial long-term financing needs.

This activity is extremely prudent and is systematically tailored to these countries’ borrowing capacities.

B

eyond the rules established by the Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF), AFD’s sovereign loan operations are in line with the more restrictive guidelines set by the French Treasury. Indeed, the DSF does not prohibit lending to countries, regardless of their risk of debt distress, provided the 35% level of concessionality is complied with. However, AFD is only authorized to lend to countries where there is a low risk of debt distress, or a moderate risk if they belong to the category of priority poor countries defined by the French authorities and if they have reached completion point under the HIPC initiative.1 Derogations may very occasionally be granted in specific contexts, such as in 2011 in Côte d’Ivoire to finance the crisis recovery process.

For countries that are not subject to the Debt Sustainability Framework, i.e. middle-income countries which have not benefited from the HIPC initiative, AFD can operate - if the country requests so and if its borrowing capacity allows it to - without a concessionality constraint.

In all the Sub-Saharan African countries where AFD operates via loans, the amounts and financial conditions are gauged in order to strike a balance between countries’ substantial financing needs and their debt sustainability. In addition to IMF analyses, AFD makes an assessment of the country’s economic potential and its future repayment capacity. This ensures that the re-indebtedness is as prudent as possible and thus avoids a new event of default. AFD benefits from a wide range of

ELIGIBILITY FOR AFD SOVEREIGN LOANS

instruments for this, from highly concessional loans earmarked for the most vulnerable countries and priority countries, to loans on market terms for middle-income countries and projects with high returns.

B urkina Faso, Central African Republic, Ghana, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Rwanda.

Chad, which is classified as yellow light under the DSF and is on the priority poor countries list, has not reached completion point under the HIPC initiative.Togo does not come under an IMF program.

1

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA EDITORIAL TEAM

MAURITANIA MALI NIGER

POSSIBILITY OF AFD LOANS TO COUNTRIES DSF: low risk

IIIIIIIIIIIIII DSF: moderate risk and priority poor countries Non-DSF

CHAD

GUINEA BISSAU

ERITHREA

SUDAN

SENEGAL THE GAMBIE BURKINA FASO GUINEA SIERRA LEONE

DJIBOUTI

BENIN CÔTE GHANA D’IVOIRE

TOGO

NO AFD LOANS TO COUNTRIES DSF: high risk DSF: moderate risk

NIGERIA ETHIOPIA

CENTRAL AFRICA REPUBLIC

LIBERIA

CAMEROON SOMALIA EQUATORIAL GUINEA

EXAMPLES OF COUNTRIES

SAO TOME

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

CONGO

GABON

LOW-INCOME COUNTRY/DSF:yellow light Priority poor country AFD sovereign loans: yes First beneficiary country of the Highly Concessional Countercyclical Loan (PTCC) Nigéria

BURUNDI

MALAWI

TANZANIA

ANGOLA

Comores

ZAMBIA

LOW-INCOME COUNTRY/DSF:red light Priority poor country AFD sovereign loans:no AFD only provides grants in the Comoros

COMOROS MOZAMBIQUE

ILE MAURICE

ZIMBABWE

MAURITIUS MADAGASCAR

NAMIBIA BOTSWANA

MAURITIUS

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY/non-DSF AFD sovereign loans:yes AFD operates with a low level of interest subsidies

MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY/non-DSF AFD sovereign loans: no RSA privileges recourse to markets rather than borrowing from donors

sub-saharan africa - n°2

KENYA

RWANDA

Burkina Faso

MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY/DSF:green light AFD sovereign loans: yes AFD provides sovereign loans with a moderate level of interest subsidies

UGANDA

06

LESOTHO SOUTH AFRICA

AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER

African agenda

for the 1st quarter of 2013

EVENTS FROM 15 JANUARY TO 31 MARCH 2013 Conferences and exhibitions AFD’S “OBJECTIF DÉVELOPPEMENT” PHOTO EXHIBITION 11 to 20 February, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire WORLD WATER DAY 21 march WORLD SOCIAL FORUM 2013 26 to 30 March, Tunis, Tunisia CLOSING OF THE CONFERENCES ON DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY March, Foreign Ministry, Paris, France

EnergY

Education and vocational training

6 th WORLD FUTURE ENERGY SUMMIT 15 to 17 January, Abu Dabi, United Arab Emirates INTERNATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY FAIR

12 to 16 February, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso il and Gas conference O and exhibition 23 to 26 April, Accra, Ghana

R EGIONAL SEMINAR: IMPROVING FOOD SECURITY THROUGH REGIONAL TRADE IN WEST AFRICA 29 to 31 January, Accra, Ghana W ORKSHOP ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE - NPCA/NEPAD FOR THE ECOWAS COUNTRIES AND REGION 4 to 8 February, Accra, Ghana 5 GENERAL MEETING OF THE COALITION FOR AFRICAN RICE DEVELOPMENT 5 to 8 February, Dakar, Senegal th

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE FAIR 27 February to 3 March, Paris, France

GLOBAL THEMATIC CONSULTATION ON EDUCATION (UNESCO/UNICEF) Late February, Dakar, Senegal IGHER EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL H INSERTION AND ENTREPRENEUR FAIR 9 February, Dakar, Senegal EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION IN FRAGILE STATES 13 February, Brussels, Belgium

healt Agriculture, food security, biodiversity

T HE SOCIO-PROFESSIONAL INTEGRATION OF YOUTH: WHAT PUBLIC POLICIES IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH? 29 January, AFD Paris, France

ealthcare in Africa 2013 H 19 February, Cape Town, South Africa

Transportation 4 th Africa Ports, Logistics and Supply Chain Conference 4 March, Accra, Ghana

PRIVATE SECTOR P rivate Equity World Africa 20 march, London, UK CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR MICROFINANCE AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR SOUTHERN TERRITORIES 28 to 30 March, Libreville, Gabon

4 th “PLANÈTE TERROIRS” INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON FAMILY FARMING AND RURAL LAND: A FORCE FOR FEEDING THE PLANET AND SUSTAINING DIVERSITIES 5 to 7 March, Dakar, Senegal

next issue SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA released in March 2013

SuB-SAHARAN aFRICA AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER

Published by Agence Française de Développement and edited by the Sub-Saharan Africa Department 5, rue Roland Barthes, 75012 Paris. Tel.: 01 53 44 37 50. www.afd.fr Director of Publications: Dov Zerah Deputy Director of Publications: Yves Boudot Editorial Director: Benoît Verdeaux Editorial team: Philippe Chedanne, Jean-François Almanza, Vanessa Jacquelain, Estelle Mercier, Benoît Verdeaux..

Contributors to this edition: Yves Boudot, Vanessa Jacquelain, Jean-François Almanza, Bastien Bedossa, Christophe Cottet Graphic design: 15, rue Ambroise Thomas 75009 Paris , Tel : 01 40 34 67 09, www.noise.fr / Publication and coordination: Lionel Bluteau and Marion Pierrelée.

A FRICAN MODEL FOREST CONFERENCE 12 to 15 March, Yaoundé, Cameroun

The analyses, interpretations and conclusions of the articles in this Newsletter are formulated under the sole responsibility of their authors. They do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of AFD directors.

sub-saharan africa - n°2

07

AFD’S SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEPARTMENT NEWSLETTER