CAF · snapshot 2026-08-09
Central African Republic
Very HighOverride appliedOverall risk score
77.4
Percentile of scored universe
95th
Data coverage
88%
vs Australia (16.1)
+61.3
Rated Very High on its own indicators; a gate condition is also flagged.
The Very High rating stands on the computed score of 77.4 (Very High). The flagged condition — UNSC sanctions framework (Central African Republic); DFAT advice: Do not travel (Level 4) — would floor the band at High even on weaker data.
Sanctions & banking access
Where sanctions make Central African Republic hard to operate in — under Australian law, under US/EU extraterritorial reach, and in practice at the bank. Comprehensive frameworks force Very High; severe secondary exposure or severed banking floors the band at High; the rest is disclosure.
Australian sanctions
DFAT frameworks that legally restrict Australian companies
UNSC sanctions framework (Central African Republic)
US/EU secondary sanctions
Extraterritorial programs that bind you regardless of Australian law
Wagner/Africa Corps designations reach the mining and security sectors that dominate the formal economy
Banking access
Will correspondent banks actually move your money out
Thin correspondent access; de-risking of payments linked to designated extractive networks
Category breakdown
Political Stability & Governance
Very High6 indicators · 100% coverage
Economic Resilience
High5 indicators · 75% coverage
Financial & Currency Risk
High5 indicators · 100% coverage
Business Environment
Very High3 indicators · 65% coverage
Security & Crime
Very High3 indicators · 80% coverage
Climate & Social Compliance
Very High4 indicators · 100% coverage
Technology & Digital
Very High4 indicators · 100% coverage
Cultural Distance
Insufficient dataInsufficient data · not in overall score
Key risks and considerations
Central African Republic rates Very High for market entry — an overall risk score of 77.4, riskier than 95% of rated economies and 61 points riskier than Australia.
An override floors the band at High: UNSC sanctions framework (Central African Republic); DFAT advice: Do not travel (Level 4).
Beyond the Australian framework, US/EU designations require enhanced screening: Wagner/Africa Corps designations reach the mining and security sectors that dominate the formal economy. Further, correspondent banking is constrained: Thin correspondent access; de-risking of payments linked to designated extractive networks.
The main risk drivers are no double-tax agreement with Australia, no investment-treaty protection with Australia, weak digital government, thin secure internet infrastructure and a low income level with limited crisis-absorption capacity.
Relative strengths: growth volatility sits in the least-risky quarter of rated economies, and currency stability rates Low, the least-risky rating band.
Possible mitigations
- Secondary-sanctions exposure. US/EU sanctions reach further than Australian law: screen counterparties against the OFAC SDN list as well as the DFAT list, remember that any USD transaction creates US jurisdiction, and obtain specialist advice before contracting with state-linked entities.
- Repatriation channel risk. Correspondent banks may refuse or delay payments even where they are legal: test the channel with pilot transfers before committing capital, maintain more than one banking relationship, consider non-USD invoicing where lawful, and build payment delays into working capital.
- Duty of care for people. DFAT advises against non-essential travel. Review duty-of-care obligations, prefer remote engagement, and use in-country agents rather than travelling staff where possible.
- Political violence. Consider political-violence and political-risk insurance, keep asset footprints light, and maintain an exit/continuity plan with defined triggers.
- Organised crime. Expect extortion, counterfeiting, and cargo-theft exposure: harden supply-chain security, vet logistics partners and distributors carefully, and avoid cash-heavy channels.
- Corruption and legal recourse. Run a strong anti-bribery program (Australian foreign-bribery law follows you abroad), conduct third-party due diligence, and seat dispute resolution offshore — arbitration clauses (e.g. SIAC or HKIAC) beat local courts.
Generated automatically from this snapshot’s indicator data — a starting point for analysis, not advice.
Indicators
| Indicator | Value | Risk score | Rating | Australia | Data source year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Political Stability & Governance | ||||||
| Voice & accountability (WGI) | 33.9 | 85.1 | Very High | |||
| Government effectiveness (WGI) | 20.7 | 95.9 | Very High | |||
| Regulatory quality (WGI) | 34.9 | 91.5 | Very High | |||
| Rule of law (WGI) | 27.5 | 95.4 | Very High | |||
| Control of corruption (WGI) | 21.3 | 91.5 | Very High | |||
| Political stability & absence of violence/terrorism (WGI PV) | 34.6 | 92.5 | Very High | |||
| Economic Resilience | ||||||
| GDP growth (3-yr average, %) | 2.2% (3-yr avg) | 45.0 | Medium | |||
| Growth volatility (10-yr std dev, pp) | ±1.8 pp | 10.3 | Low | |||
| Government net debt (% of GDP) | 61.8 | 60.0 | High | |||
| Inflation (CPI %, vs income-group target) | 1.0 | 35.0 | Medium | |||
| Current account (3-yr average, % of GDP) | — | — | Insufficient data | |||
| FX reserves (months of import cover) | — | — | Insufficient data | |||
| GDP per capita (PPP, current intl $) | $1,314 | 99.2 | Very High | |||
| Financial & Currency Risk | ||||||
| Capital-account openness (Chinn-Ito KAOPEN) | 0.16 | 78.0 | Very High | |||
| Currency stability (regime-aware classification) | Pegged — credible (reserve-backed, low inflation gap) | 12.0 | Low | |||
| Sovereign credit risk (OECD country risk classification) | Category 7 / 7 | 92.0 | Very High | |||
| FATF listing (grey / black list status) | Not listed | 0.0 | Low | |||
| Double-tax agreement with Australia | None in force | 100.0 | Very High | |||
| Business Environment | ||||||
| FDI regulatory restrictiveness (OECD FDIRRI) | — | — | Insufficient data | |||
| Logistics performance (World Bank LPI) | 2.5 | 75.4 | Very High | |||
| Business readiness (World Bank B-READY pillar average) | 39.9 | 94.9 | Very High | |||
| Investment protection with Australia in force (BIT or FTA investment chapter) | None in force | 100.0 | Very High | |||
| Security & Crime | ||||||
| Armed-conflict intensity (battle deaths per 100k, 5-yr) | 11.4 | 95.6 | Very High | |||
| Intentional homicide rate (per 100k) | 20.1 | — | Insufficient data | |||
| Organised crime pervasiveness (GI-TOC criminality score) | 7.0 | 91.9 | Very High | |||
| DFAT Smartraveller advisory level | Level 4 — Do not travel | 95.0 | Very High | |||
| Climate & Social Compliance | ||||||
| Physical climate vulnerability (ND-GAIN vulnerability) | 0.588 | 91.8 | Very High | |||
| Disaster risk (INFORM Risk Index) | 8.1 | 97.9 | Very High | |||
| Modern-slavery prevalence (per 1,000) | 5.3 | 48.4 | Medium | |||
| Modern-slavery vulnerability score | 97.7 | 98.4 | Very High | |||
| Technology & Digital | ||||||
| E-government development (UN EGDI) | 0.1 | 99.7 | Very High | |||
| Internet users (% of population) | 13.8 | 98.1 | Very High | |||
| Cybercrime origination (World Cybercrime Index) | 0.1 | 30.0 | Medium | |||
| Secure internet servers (per million people) | 1.7 | 99.3 | Very High | |||
Per-indicator ratings are quartile bands of the 0–100 risk score. The Australia column shows the same indicator’s raw value for the Australian baseline in this snapshot.
Cultural distance
GLOBE 2004 societal practices · rated on distance from Australia · not in the overall score
Context — not scored
Unemployment
6.3%
Displayed, never scored: ambiguous for an entrant and unreliable where informal employment dominates. (2025, ILO modelled)
Trade agreement
No Australian FTA in force
Market access is decision-relevant but a benefit, not a risk — kept out of the rating.
Regional advisories
No higher regional advisory levels
DFAT Smartraveller sub-national advice where it exceeds the overall level.
Compare with
A score means little on its own. These economies scored closest to Central African Republic in this snapshot, which is the fastest way to see whether the rating is telling you something specific or something regional.
16.1 · Baseline for every comparison
77.7 · 0.3 points higher than Central African Republic
76.1 · 1.4 points lower than Central African Republic
75.5 · 1.9 points lower than Central African Republic
75.4 · 2.0 points lower than Central African Republic