Country Profile on AI Governance: Central African Republic

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.40 · all 54 states mean 1.76.

1. S1.1

   National AI strategy existence

   Score 0 / 4

   No national AI strategy found; no digital economy strategy with confirmed AI provisions; ARCEP Centrafrique last published market data in 2020 due to data collection incapacity caused by the security crisis

   Note: No evidence of any AI strategy or AI-specific policy document; fragile state context severely limits governance capacity; scored 0, no evidence

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

2. S1.2

   Strategy adoption date

   Score 0 / 4

   N/A, no national AI strategy adopted; no adoption date exists

   Note: Not applicable until a strategy is adopted

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: none (adoption date). No formally adopted national AI strategy.

3. S1.3

   Political commitment signals

   Score 0 / 4

   No ministerial AI statements or presidential directives on AI identified; ongoing security crisis (armed groups control ~60% of territory) limits government capacity to any governance beyond essential services

   Note: Fragile state context; government capacity concentrated on security and humanitarian response; no political AI commitment signal found

4. S1.4

   Dedicated AI budget allocation

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI budget allocation of any kind identified; CAR is heavily donor-dependent (ODA accounts for ~70% of public investment); no ICT or AI budget line confirmed

   Note: Donor-dependent fiscal environment; no ring-fenced or embedded AI budget

5. S1.5

   AU Continental AI Strategy alignment

   Score 0 / 4

   No alignment with AU Continental AI Strategy found; CAR signed Malabo Convention but has not ratified it; no AU AI Technical Committee engagement documented

   Note: No alignment process initiated; AU membership provides awareness-level only

   Sources en.wikipedia.org (opens in a new tab)

6. S1.6

   Multi-stakeholder consultation

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI multi-stakeholder consultation process identified; government-civil society engagement severely constrained by conflict context and limited state presence outside Bangui

   Note: Structural impossibility in fragile state context; no consultation mechanism established

7. S1.7

   Sector prioritisation

   Score 0 / 4

   No sector prioritisation for AI identified; no digital economy strategy with sector-level AI applications found

   Note: Pre-strategy stage; sector prioritisation not applicable

8. S1.8

   Implementation roadmap

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI implementation roadmap found; ARCEP Centrafrique published no regulatory plan referencing AI

   Note: Pre-strategy stage; roadmap not applicable

9. S1.9

   Monitoring and evaluation framework

   Score 0 / 4

   No M&E framework for AI or digital governance found; ARCEP Centrafrique itself has limited capacity to collect and publish market data (last published 2020)

   Note: Government M&E capacity severely constrained; no AI M&E even discussed

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

10. S1.10

    Strategy review mechanism

    Score 0 / 4

    No strategy review mechanism found; no AI strategy exists to review

    Note: Pre-strategy stage; review mechanism not applicable

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.31 · all 54 states mean 1.32.

1. G2.1

   AI-specific legislation

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-specific legislation enacted; no AI law under discussion in any documented public forum

   Note: Pre-legislative stage on AI; digital law framework itself is nascent

2. G2.2

   Data protection law status

   Score 2 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 on the Protection of Personal Data enacted January 2024; establishes a comprehensive data protection framework; DPA mandated but operational status unclear as of mid-2025

   Note: Law enacted Jan 2024, a notable achievement for a fragile state; DPA establishment mandated; scored 2 (developing) as DPA is not yet confirmed operational

   Sources techhiveadvisory.africa (opens in a new tab)

3. G2.3

   DPA AI mandate

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 mandates establishment of a data protection authority; as of mid-2025 it is unclear whether the DPA has been formally appointed and staffed; no AI-specific mandate confirmed

   Note: DPA mandated by law but operational status unconfirmed from public sources; AI-specific mandate not explicit in the law

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

4. G2.4

   DPA staffing and budget

   Score 0 / 4

   DPA operational status itself unconfirmed; no published data on staff count, competency, or budget

   Note: Cannot assess staffing or budget without confirmed DPA establishment

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

5. G2.5

   AI regulatory body existence

   Score 0 / 4

   No dedicated AI regulatory body or AI advisory council identified; ARCEP Centrafrique (established by Law 17.020 of 2017) is the sole ICT regulator with no AI mandate

   Note: General ICT regulator exists (ARCEP Centrafrique); no AI-specific governance body of any kind

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

6. G2.6

   Institutional design model

   Score 1 / 4

   Minimal institutional design: ARCEP Centrafrique as general ICT regulator; DPA mandated under Law 24.001 but not yet operational; no AI governance model documented

   Note: ICT regulatory institution exists (ARCEP); DPA to be established; no AI governance model; scored 1 as basic regulatory institution exists

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

7. G2.7

   Malabo Convention ratification

   Score 1 / 4

   CAR signed the AU Malabo Convention but has not ratified it; no ratification reported as of June 2026

   Note: Signed only (not ratified); scored 1 (nascent), signature demonstrates awareness but no implementing obligations

   Sources en.wikipedia.org (opens in a new tab)

8. G2.8

   Enforcement actions taken

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-specific or data protection enforcement actions documented; ARCEP Centrafrique has no confirmed enforcement capacity for data or AI; Law 24.001 is too new for enforcement actions

   Note: Law 24.001 enacted Jan 2024; DPA not yet operational; enforcement infrastructure absent

9. G2.9

   Extraterritorial provisions

   Score 2 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 on the Protection of Personal Data applies to 'any processing of personal data within the CAR or having effects within its territory' including public security and defence, notably broader territorial scope than some regional peers

   Note: Notable strength: data law has an explicit and broad territorial effects clause; scored 2 as the legal text is established even if enforcement is absent

   Sources techhiveadvisory.africa (opens in a new tab)

10. G2.10

    IP framework for AI

    Score 0 / 4

    No review of IP legislation for AI-generated content identified; OAPI (Organisation Africaine de la Propriete Intellectuelle) covers CAR for intellectual property; no AI IP review initiated

    Note: OAPI provides regional IP framework; domestic AI-specific IP review not initiated

Mean of the 8 scored indicators; 2 carry no score. Central Africa mean 1.20 · all 54 states mean 1.51.

No score: 1 not applicable, 1 context only.

1. I3.1

   Data center count

   Score 0 / 4

   No commercial data centers confirmed in CAR; conflict-affected environment severely limits infrastructure investment; Bangui relies on satellite and limited fibre connectivity

   Note: Among the least data center-equipped countries in Africa; physical security risks preclude investment

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (data centres). Raw value read from the evidence: "No commercial data centers confirmed in CAR" [absence of confirmed commercial DC]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

2. I3.2

   Data center capacity (MW)

   Score 0 / 4

   No published data center capacity data; infrastructure assessed as pre-commercial Tier level

   Note: Cannot quantify; infrastructure does not exist at measurable commercial scale

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

3. I3.3

   Submarine cable landing points

   ○N/A: Does not apply to this country

   CAR is landlocked with no submarine cable landing points; international connectivity relies on fibre backhaul through Cameroon and DRC (Congo-Kinshasa), both subject to infrastructure gaps and transit disruptions

   Note: Structural infrastructure constraint; international connectivity entirely dependent on terrestrial fibre through neighbouring countries

   Scoring basis Not applicable; excluded from the pillar mean. Landlocked: excluded from P3 (geography is not governance).

4. I3.4

   International bandwidth (Gbps)

   Score 0 / 4

   Among the lowest-connected countries in the world; ARCEP Centrafrique published no bandwidth or penetration data after 2020; internet penetration estimated below 12% (ITU 2024); mobile internet is primary and very limited access channel

   Note: Extremely constrained; ARCEP data collection capacity itself collapsed; conflict zones have no connectivity

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

5. I3.5

   Hyperscaler presence

   Score 0 / 4

   No AWS, Azure, Microsoft, or Google Cloud infrastructure in CAR; no hyperscaler regional point-of-presence; even basic cloud services require routing through Cameroon or Europe

   Note: Structural and commercial barrier; no hyperscaler has any commitment to CAR infrastructure

6. I3.6

   GPU/HPC access

   Score 0 / 4

   No national HPC or GPU facility confirmed; University of Bangui has severely limited computing resources; no academic AI computing infrastructure identified

   Note: Critical constraint for any AI research or development; electricity supply itself is unreliable in Bangui

7. I3.7

   Data localisation provisions

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 on the Protection of Personal Data includes cross-border data transfer provisions and implicitly requires data processing within CAR for certain sensitive categories; no comprehensive localisation mandate

   Note: Legal framework for data localisation exists in principle; physical infrastructure to implement is absent; scored 1 as the legal text is nascent

   Sources techhiveadvisory.africa (opens in a new tab)

8. I3.8

   Cross-border data flow framework

   Score 2 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 explicitly covers cross-border data transfers; CEMAC (regional economic community) digital framework provides a multilateral baseline; no bilateral AI-specific data flow agreements confirmed

   Note: Formal legal framework via Law 24.001 and CEMAC regional instrument; scored 2 as the regional and domestic legal framework is established even without bilateral agreements

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

9. I3.9

   Foreign AI surveillance spending

   ○Context only: Context flag outside the score

   No documented government spending on foreign AI surveillance systems found; risk is noted by civil society given Russian Wagner Group presence and associated technology transfers (2019-2023), but no procurement evidence publicly confirmed

   Note: Absence of public evidence; risk of surveillance technology without governance oversight is high in conflict context

   Scoring basis Context flag; outside the score. Raw value read from the evidence: "No documented government spending on foreign AI surveillance systems found".

10. I3.10

    Sovereign cloud initiatives

    Score 0 / 4

    No national sovereign cloud initiative identified; all government digital services (where they exist) rely on externally hosted infrastructure or paper-based systems

    Note: Far below threshold for sovereign cloud discussion; basic digital infrastructure absent

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 0.69 · all 54 states mean 1.20.

1. H4.1

   AI researchers per million

   Score 0 / 4

   No identified AI researchers affiliated with CAR institutions; University of Bangui's Faculty of Sciences has limited STEM capacity; no per-million AI researcher statistic published or estimable

   Note: Among the lowest-capacity countries in sub-Saharan Africa for STEM research; conflict displacement has reduced academic workforce

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (AI researchers per million). Raw value read from the evidence: "No identified AI researchers affiliated with CAR institutions" [absence statement; text adds statistic "not published or estimable"]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

2. H4.2

   DPA staff with AI competency

   Score 0 / 4

   DPA not yet confirmed operational; no data on staff count or AI competency for any regulatory authority

   Note: Cannot assess without confirmed DPA establishment

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

3. H4.3

   University AI programs

   Score 0 / 4

   University of Bangui has a Faculty of Sciences but no confirmed computer science or AI/ML degree programme; conflict has severely disrupted higher education infrastructure

   Note: Higher education capacity severely constrained; University of Bangui has reduced to minimal operations in recent years due to conflict

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (universities). Raw value read from the evidence: "no confirmed computer science or AI/ML degree programme". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

4. H4.4

   African-authored AI publications

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-related academic publications from CAR-affiliated authors identified; no active AI research group documented

   Note: Research output effectively zero; no domestic AI research infrastructure

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. 0 ÷ 5.33m = 0.00 per million. Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI-related academic publications from CAR-affiliated authors identified" [source used: not named]. Listed for second-edition review: The Thresholds rule says to use OpenAlex for the Central African Republic, which is absent from the CSET series. The 0 rests on a fellow statement with no named source.

5. H4.5

   AI patents filed

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-related patents filed by CAR-affiliated inventors identified; OAPI covers CAR for IP registration

   Note: Patent filing infrastructure exists via OAPI; AI patent activity absent

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (AI patent applications/year). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI-related patents filed by CAR-affiliated inventors identified". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

6. H4.6

   K-12 CS education

   Score 0 / 4

   No confirmed mandatory or voluntary K-12 computer science or digital literacy curriculum; education system itself is severely under-resourced with among the lowest school completion rates in Africa

   Note: Primary and secondary education heavily disrupted by conflict; CS curriculum not relevant at current stage

7. H4.7

   AI workforce training programs

   Score 0 / 4

   No government-supported AI reskilling or workforce training programme identified; no international AI capacity-building programme targeting CAR found

   Note: No AI workforce training at any scale; UNESCO and ITU do not appear to have active AI capacity-building programmes in CAR

8. H4.8

   Labour transition policy

   Score 0 / 4

   No government framework for AI and labour market transition; labour market itself is predominantly informal and agricultural; no assessment commissioned

   Note: Not applicable at current development stage

9. H4.9

   Informal economy AI assessment

   Score 0 / 4

   No government assessment of AI's impact on the informal economy; informal sector represents ~90% of economic activity in CAR

   Note: Critical gap given near-total informality of CAR's economy

10. H4.10

    African language NLP coverage

    Score 0 / 4

    Sango (national language) and French (official) dominant; no NLP tools documented for Sango; no domestic AI language research identified; Sango is unique and has no known public NLP corpus

    Note: Sango is an Ngbandi-based creole spoken by ~90% of population; absence from NLP research is a documented gap in Central African language AI

    Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 of 1 (languages supported / major languages), normalised 0. 0% of major domestic languages. Raw value read from the evidence: "no NLP tools documented for Sango" [denominator (set by the editors, not taken from the profile text): Sango]. Listed for second-edition review: The Thresholds sheet lists Sango as covered by NLLB-200, which gives 1 of 1. The count used follows the profile text.

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 0.67 · all 54 states mean 1.05.

1. N5.1

   AI companies count

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI companies confirmed operating in CAR; no tech company registry exists; Bangui has no documented tech startup cluster; mobile money operators (Orange CAR) represent most tech-advanced commercial activity

   Note: Effectively zero AI company presence; scored 0 with confidence

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (companies). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI companies confirmed operating in CAR" [directory used: none]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

2. N5.2

   Private AI investment (USD)

   Score 0 / 4

   No private AI investment documented; CAR receives minimal FDI of any kind; total FDI inflows typically below $50M/year across all sectors

   Note: Investment climate rated among lowest globally due to conflict and governance fragility

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (USD/year). Raw value read from the evidence: "No private AI investment documented". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

3. N5.3

   AI incubators/accelerators

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI incubators or technology accelerators confirmed; no general tech hub documented in Bangui

   Note: Innovation ecosystem does not exist at measurable scale

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (incubators/accelerators). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI incubators or technology accelerators confirmed". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

4. N5.4

   Regulatory sandbox (AI)

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI regulatory sandbox identified; no general fintech sandbox despite mobile money sector

   Note: Sandbox model not applicable at current development stage

5. N5.5

   Government AI procurement

   Score 0 / 4

   No government procurement of AI solutions identified; government procurement capacity severely limited; most government functions rely on donor-funded systems

   Note: Government procurement dominated by humanitarian and basic services; AI procurement not relevant

6. N5.6

   AI safety evaluation capacity

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI safety testing or evaluation facility; no academic AI research capability that could serve a safety testing function; ARCEP Centrafrique has no AI mandate

   Note: Pre-condition for AI safety evaluation (functional AI ecosystem) does not exist

7. N5.7

   ISO/IEC 42001 adoption

   Score 0 / 4

   No evidence of ISO/IEC 42001 adoption; no national standards body with AI capacity; ANAC (national standards body) has limited operational capacity

   Note: Standards body exists in name but has no AI technical capacity

8. N5.8

   Standards body AI competency

   Score 0 / 4

   ANAC (national standards body) exists but has no confirmed AI-specific technical committee; operational capacity of ANAC itself is limited

   Note: Standards institution exists; AI technical capacity absent; no AI working group

9. N5.9

   AI risk assessment frameworks

   Score 0 / 4

   No sector-specific or cross-sector AI risk assessment frameworks identified; no voluntary guidelines; Law 24.001 has data protection impact provisions in principle but no AI risk framework

   Note: No AI risk assessment activity of any kind documented

10. N5.10

    University-industry AI partnerships

    Score 0 / 4

    No formal or informal university-industry AI partnerships; University of Bangui has no documented private sector AI research collaboration

    Note: University-industry collaboration in any tech field is absent; AI-specific partnerships not possible without baseline university AI capacity

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.16 · all 54 states mean 1.26.

1. E6.1

   Algorithmic impact assessment

   Score 0 / 4

   No algorithmic impact assessment requirement; Law 24.001 includes data protection impact provisions in principle but no AIA mechanism established or operational

   Note: Pre-governance stage; AIA not relevant without functioning AI systems in formal use

2. E6.2

   Bias audit requirements

   Score 0 / 4

   No bias audit requirements for any sector; no regulatory guidance issued on AI bias

   Note: Pre-governance stage; no AI systems in formal regulated use

3. E6.3

   Transparency obligations

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 includes data subject transparency rights covering automated processing; no broader AI system transparency obligation beyond data law provisions

   Note: Data law transparency provisions apply in principle; AI-specific transparency rules absent; scored 1 as data law represents a nascent transparency framework

   Sources techhiveadvisory.africa (opens in a new tab)

4. E6.4

   Citizen redress mechanism

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 24.001 provides for a DPA complaint mechanism in principle; DPA not yet confirmed operational; no dedicated AI complaint channel exists; courts nominally available but severely limited in reach outside Bangui

   Note: Legal pathway for redress exists in law; operational delivery deeply uncertain given unconfirmed DPA and conflict context; scored 1 as nascent legal pathway

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

5. E6.5

   Judicial AI remedy

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-specific judicial precedent documented; formal court system exists only in Bangui and is severely under-resourced; no AI-related legal case documented

   Note: Court system too constrained to adjudicate AI disputes even if they arose

6. E6.6

   AI advisory body diversity

   Score 0 / 4

   No national AI advisory body of any kind; no AI governance institution exists to have a diversity dimension

   Note: Pre-institutional stage; no advisory body to assess

7. E6.7

   Global AI governance participation

   Score 1 / 4

   CEMAC member and AU member; no documented active participation in global AI governance forums (GPAI, UNESCO, OECD AI); CAR referenced in Paradigm Initiative LONDA Report (2024) as external civil society documentation

   Note: Awareness-level at best; AU and CEMAC membership provides passive access to AI governance discussions; no active participation confirmed; scored 1

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

8. E6.8

   Civil society AI engagement

   Score 1 / 4

   Paradigm Initiative LONDA Report (2024) provides external civil society assessment of CAR's digital rights environment; no government-civil society AI engagement mechanism exists domestically

   Note: External civil society documentation of CAR's AI/digital rights situation exists; no domestic engagement mechanism; scored 1 as external CSO activity constitutes nascent civil society engagement

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

9. E6.9

   African ethical framework reference

   Score 0 / 4

   No reference to African ethical principles (Ubuntu, etc.) in any CAR governance document; Law 24.001 is technically framed without African philosophical grounding

   Note: Pre-strategy stage; African ethical frameworks not yet integrated

10. E6.10

    Youth participation

    Score 0 / 4

    No formal mechanism for youth participation in AI governance; youth organisations active in CAR but focused on peacebuilding, not AI governance

    Note: Youth organisations exist but AI governance is not a current agenda item given more urgent humanitarian priorities

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.34 · all 54 states mean 1.55.

1. R7.1

   AU AI Strategy alignment

   Score 0 / 4

   No formal AU AI Strategy alignment process initiated; AU membership provides passive exposure; no AU AI Technical Committee engagement documented for CAR

   Note: Awareness-level only; no alignment process initiated

2. R7.2

   Kigali Declaration endorsement

   Score 3 / 4

   No confirmed endorsement of the Kigali Declaration on AI Governance

   Note: No evidence of consideration or endorsement

   Scoring basis Official signatory list applied. Signatory of the Africa Declaration on AI (Kigali, 4 April 2025), C4IR list: "Endorsed" = 3.

   Sources c4ir.rw (opens in a new tab)

3. R7.3

   REC AI governance coordination

   Score 1 / 4

   ECCAS and CEMAC member; CEMAC Regulation No. 21/08 on electronic communications applies to CAR by membership; no active AI-specific ECCAS governance coordination

   Note: Regional instruments apply by membership; active AI governance coordination within ECCAS not confirmed; scored 1 as regional membership provides a passive framework

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

4. R7.4

   Cross-border AI agreements

   Score 1 / 4

   CEMAC Regulation No. 21/08 on electronic communications applies; ECCAS digital framework applies by membership; no bilateral AI governance agreements confirmed

   Note: Regional instrument applies by CEMAC membership; no bilateral AI-specific agreement; scored 1

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

5. R7.5

   Election integrity AI provisions

   Score 0 / 4

   No specific legal or institutional provisions addressing AI use in elections; electoral commission (ANE) has no documented AI framework; elections in CAR have been contested and disrupted by conflict

   Note: CAR elections (2021, 2024) held in conflict context; no AI governance provisions documented

6. R7.6

   Disinformation response framework

   Score 0 / 4

   No formal government framework for AI-generated disinformation; conflict and information environment make disinformation an acute risk (Russia/Wagner narratives documented) but no AI disinformation governance response found

   Note: Disinformation is a documented and acute risk in CAR's conflict context; governance response absent

7. R7.7

   AI election incidents documented

   Score 0 / 4

   No publicly documented AI-related election interference incidents; general disinformation and social media manipulation documented but not specifically AI-attributed

   Note: Information manipulation exists; AI-specific attribution not confirmed in public sources

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (rule band). Scored on documented institutional response, not incident count.

8. R7.8

   Platform content moderation

   Score 0 / 4

   No formal government engagement with social media platforms on AI content moderation for CAR context; internet penetration too low (~12%) for platform governance to be a priority

   Note: Platform governance not yet a priority given limited connectivity

9. R7.9

   Geneva Dialogue participation

   Score 0 / 4

   No confirmed CAR delegation to UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance (July 2026); capacity and diplomatic resources preclude active multilateral AI governance participation

   Note: Diplomatic priorities focused on security, humanitarian, and peace process; AI governance multilateral engagement not feasible

10. R7.10

    G20/multilateral AI engagement

    Score 0 / 4

    Not a G20 or BRICS member; no active engagement in any multilateral AI initiative documented; UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSCA) does not engage on AI governance

    Note: Effectively zero multilateral AI governance engagement; survival governance mode

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 0.60 · all 54 states mean 0.78.

1. M8.1

   AI governance budget disbursed

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI governance budget disbursed; no AI budget line exists at any level of government; ODA and humanitarian funding dominate public finance

   Note: Public finance overwhelmingly absorbed by security, humanitarian response, and basic services

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (USD).

2. M8.2

   Health AI regulation

   Score 0 / 4

   No health AI regulation; no AI-specific provisions in health sector; healthcare system relies almost entirely on NGOs and UN agencies (MSF, UNICEF, WHO)

   Note: Healthcare system capacity preconditions for AI regulation are absent

3. M8.3

   Health AI devices approved

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI health devices or tools formally approved; no regulatory approval mechanism for health AI exists; ARCEP Centrafrique has no health mandate

   Note: Health regulatory infrastructure does not exist at level required for AI device approval

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (authorised devices).

4. M8.4

   Government AI system registry

   Score 0 / 4

   No government registry of AI systems in use; government digital systems are minimal and not catalogued

   Note: Government digitalisation itself is nascent; AI registry not applicable

5. M8.5

   AI governance M&E reports

   Score 0 / 4

   No published M&E reports on AI governance implementation; no AI governance activity to monitor; ARCEP Centrafrique has published no market reports since 2020

   Note: ARCEP data collection capacity collapsed post-2020; external CSO reports (Paradigm Initiative LONDA) are the only governance-relevant documentation

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (reports).

   Sources paradigmhq.org (opens in a new tab)

6. M8.6

   Agriculture AI governance

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI governance provisions specific to agriculture; agricultural sector (80%+ of population) receives no AI governance attention; subsistence farming is primary livelihood

   Note: Agriculture is the dominant livelihood sector; AI governance for agriculture not yet discussed at any level

7. M8.7

   Financial services AI governance

   Score 0 / 4

   BEAC (regional central bank) governs monetary policy; no CAR-specific or BEAC-level AI guidance for financial services; mobile money (Orange Money CAR) operates without AI governance framework

   Note: Mobile money is a significant service in CAR but no AI governance framework applies

8. M8.8

   Education AI governance

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI governance provisions specific to education; education system itself is severely disrupted and under-resourced; UNESCO supports basic education reconstruction

   Note: Education system in recovery mode; AI in education not yet a policy discussion

9. M8.9

   Measurable governance outcomes

   Score 0 / 4

   No measurable AI governance outcomes; no AI governance activity exists to produce outcomes; Law 24.001 (data protection) is the only governance instrument but is not yet enforced

   Note: Pre-implementation stage; Law 24.001 is the sole governance foundation, no enforcement outcomes documented

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

10. M8.10

    WHO AI health guidance adoption

    Score 0 / 4

    No formal adoption of WHO Ethics and Governance of AI for Health guidance; WHO operates health emergency programmes in CAR but no AI health governance alignment confirmed

    Note: WHO active in CAR on health emergencies; AI health governance alignment not on agenda