In today’s global context, marked by mounting environmental challenges and growing food
demand, agriculture emerges not only as source of livelihood for millions of households but also
as a crucial vector for economic growth and development. In Cameroon, it constitutes a
cornerstone of the economy, accounting for more than half of non-oil export revenues and
employing nearly 60% of the active population. To promote and sustain investment in this crucial
sector, Cameroonian tax legislature has established a legal framework that provides a set of
incentive regimes, designed to stimulate private engagement. Among these, the regime set out in
the General Tax Code (GTC) and that introduced by Presidential Ordinance No. 2025/002 of 18 th
July 2025 stand out for their potential to transform the agricultural landscape of the country by
encouraging greater investment. While these two regimes share the same objectives and provide
several common incentives, their coexistence raises significant questions regarding their
inclusiveness and their ability to address the varied needs of investors. This article thus seeks to
explore these regimes in order to analyze their synergies and divergences, and to assess their
complementarity. Such an analysis helps measure their effectiveness and sheds light on their
contribution to achieving the ambitions of a dynamic and sustainable agricultural sector in
Cameroon.
Although investment incentives in Cameroon’s agricultural sector remain the product of evolving
and sometimes fragmented legislation, the two main regimes are enshrined in two fundamental
texts. The first is set out in Article 122 of the GTC, and the second derives from Presidential
Ordinance No. 2025/002 of 18 July 2025. Despite their different legal nature, both pursue the
same objective, namely the promotion of investment in agriculture. To this end, the two regimes
provide a series of exemptions and reductions in taxes, customs duties, and administrative
charges, as well as financial and accounting facilities at various stages of the investment project.
During the installation or investment phase, both texts grant, among others, exemptions from
VAT on pesticides, fertilizers, and agricultural equipment related to the project. At this stage,
exemptions are also provided from registration duties on land transfers for agricultural purposes,
concession contracts, and certain leases, together with exemption from property tax on buildings
or land assigned to the project. In the operational phase, the incentives offered by both the GTC
and the 2025 Ordinance include tax credits of up to 80% of the investment made, exemption from business license contributions, and exemption from Corporate Income Tax (CIT) and any of its
advance payments. Despite these similarities, the two regimes also display specific features that
help to distinguish their scope and significance.
While both the GTC and the 2025 Ordinance share many points of convergence, they differ in
certain areas such as scope, conditions, and procedures for granting tax benefits. With respect to
scope, Article 122 b (1) of the GTC limits the benefits available during the operational phase to
individual farmers, including cooperatives and common initiative groups (CIGs), engaged in
agricultural production. According to the 2023 Finance Law circular, which amended this
incentive regime, commercial companies such as Public Limited Companies and Private Limited
Companies are excluded. Paragraph b (2) of the same article specifies that these companies may
nevertheless benefit from the incentives provided under the 2013 Investment Promotion Law,
which has since been repealed and replaced by the July 2025 Ordinance. By contrast, the regime
established under the 2025 Ordinance applies without distinction to both individuals and
corporate entities meeting the eligibility requirements during the installation and operational
phases. Regarding conditions and modalities, the incentives granted under the GTC are not
subject to any prior requirements, and beneficiaries are not required to obtain an exemption
certificate from the tax administration. This is not the case for the incentives provided under the
2025 Ordinance. Its Article 30 subjects access to these incentives to a set of general and specific
criteria, and the granting of such measures is contingent upon obtaining approval from the body
responsible for promoting investments. Beyond these distinctions, it is clear that investors
excluded from one regime may qualify under the other, and some investors may qualify under
both. Hence, there is a synergistic interaction and complementarity between these two incentive
regimes that coexist in the agricultural sector to promote its expansion.
In conclusion, the analysis of investment incentive regimes in Cameroon’s agricultural sector
highlights a complex reality, where a regime established by the GTC coexists with another
instituted by the July 2025 Ordinance. However, each regime presents specificities regarding its
scope and the conditions and modalities for benefiting from the advantages it grants. Despite
these disparities, their coexistence creates complementarity, allowing investors to navigate
between them and benefit from one or both regimes, provided the relevant conditions are met.