With an active portfolio exceeding 622.8 billion FCFA spread across 51 projects, the French Development Agency (AFD) stands as Cameroon’s top bilateral donor. However, a closer look at the 2025 sectoral breakdown reveals a striking imbalance: 44.2% of funds are directed toward infrastructure and urban development, while agriculture and food security—flagship priorities for Cameroon’s import-substitution strategy—receive just 1.7%.
Infrastructure takes center stage, but at what cost?
Cameroon’s reliance on AFD financing is nothing new. Since 1960, the agency has been a key partner, with annual commitments averaging 150 billion FCFA since 2002. The 2025 budget reflects this long-standing focus. On January 21, five financing agreements totaling 175.5 million euros were signed, including a sovereign loan of 150 million euros for the Programme de lutte contre les inondations à Douala et Yaoundé (PLIDY). This project targets recurrent flooding in the country’s two largest cities, aiming to reduce vulnerability for both populations and infrastructure. Alone, this initiative accounts for nearly five times the triennial budget Cameroon recently allocated to reviving its wheat sector.
The AFD has also backed the Capitales Régionales program, funded through the Contrat de Désendettement et de Développement (C2D), to modernize urban infrastructure in five secondary cities, alongside the Sport et Capitalisation initiative to improve access to sports facilities.
Agriculture left behind in the funding equation
Cameroon’s Stratégie Nationale de Développement 2020-2030 (SND30) prioritizes food sovereignty, with the Plan intégré d’import-substitution agropastoral et halieutique (PIISAH) earmarking 1,500 billion FCFA to slash reliance on rice, wheat, palm oil, and other staples. Yet AFD’s 1.7% allocation to agriculture and food security in 2025 seems out of sync with these ambitions.
This disparity is even more pronounced when compared to the AFD’s broader African strategy. Between 2018 and 2024, Proparco—its private-sector arm—doubled its annual investments across the continent, channeling 7.6 billion euros annually into infrastructure, agriculture, food security, financial systems, and essential services.
The contrast is stark. While the AFD has supported over 8,000 productive projects in Cameroon through the Accès des Entreprises aux Financements en Afrique (ACEFA) program—impacting 260,000 farms and financing microprojects in cereals, livestock, agro-processing, and marketing—the agricultural sector’s share in the 2025 portfolio remains marginal. The ACEFA’s consolidation phase now aims to reach one million Cameroonian farms by 2035, given that family farms produce nearly 80% of the nation’s agricultural output.
Sovereign loans dominate, leaving little room for grants
The 2025 financial breakdown highlights another critical factor: sovereign loans account for 33.9% of commitments, followed by senior loans (23.2%), C2D funds (16.2%), and guarantees (12.6%). Grants, which are non-reimbursable and ideal for socially impactful projects like agriculture, represent just 6.3% of the total. This structure inherently favors large-scale infrastructure, which generates tangible assets for repayment, while agricultural projects—often involving dispersed populations and long-term returns—struggle to fit this model.
In Central Africa, 64% of AFD’s commitments over the review period have gone to infrastructure and development. Cameroon, as the region’s top recipient, mirrors this trend. The question remains: does Cameroon actively choose this allocation, or is it a byproduct of negotiations with its donor?
SND30 vs. AFD: aligning two distinct visions
The SND30 outlines clear structural transformation goals: reducing food imports, boosting agro-industry, and creating local added value. Yet the AFD’s lending-driven approach tends to prioritize high-visibility urban projects—roads, drainage systems, and facilities—over agricultural value chains, which require years of gradual support to yield measurable results.
As Cameroon charts its path to food sovereignty, the gap between its strategic priorities and AFD’s funding reality raises important questions about alignment, negotiation, and the future of agricultural development in the country.
