Sierra Leone – its economic future – 2020

A Sustainable Future for ALL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5lBwrJcUOk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9AS6KT7a5Y

The World Bank – Snap Shot -2015

Macroeconomic Context

Real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 was 7.1%, and 1.0% excluding iron ore production, compared to the pre-

Ebola forecast of 11.3% and 6%. The Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) adversely affected several sectors of the economy,

coupled with the closure of the mining sector due to decline in international market prices.

Prospects for 2015 are uncertain being dependent on EVD containment and resumption of iron ore production, real

GDP expected to contract by between 13% and 24%, depending on iron ore production, with the non-iron ore

economy shrinking by 1 percent.

Moreover, the recent suspension of production by Addax Bioenergy has also added to the contraction in the economy

over the second half. The economy is now projected to contract by a very substantial 24% in 2015. The effects of iron

ore related closures and that of Addax could have devastating consequences on jobs and by extension families.

Over the first half of 2015 fiscal flows have been kept relatively stable and maintained below IMF programme

parameters.

Expenditures have been contained over the first half of 2015, but this has been achieved in part through the banking

of commitments leading up to the end of the first half.

The deterioration in mineral exports and higher imports in 2015 is likely to impact adversely on the trade balance for

2015 with a sharp reduction in the March quarter already evident.

The basic structure of life in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone's economy is predominantly agricultural, with about half of its workers engaged in subsistence farming. The principal food crops are rice, cassava, corn, millet, and peanuts. The leading cash crops, most of which are exported, are coffee, cocoa, palm kernels, and palm oil. Poultry, cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats are raised. The fishing industry is also important.

Agriculture in Sierra Leone is a significant part of the economy of Sierra Leone with it accounting for over 50 percent national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). . Two-thirds of the population of Sierra Leone are involved in subsistence agriculture.

Sierra Leone is not self-sufficient in food. Food is one of Sierra Leone's biggest imports

Sierra Leone’s exports have been increasing after the UN sanctions were lifted in late 2010. Sierra Leone main exports are diamonds (63 percent of total exports), cocoa (22 percent) and coffee. Sierra Leone main export partners are: Belgium, Netherlands, China and United States.

Sierra Leone Trade Balance

As of 2014 Sierra Leone had a negative trade balance of $218M in net imports. As compared to their trade balance in 1995 when they still had a negative trade balance of $113M in net imports.

In 2014 Sierra Leone imported $2.36B, making it the 156th largest importer in the world. During the last five years the imports of Sierra Leone have increased at an annualised rate of 31.2%, from $606M in 2009 to $2.36B in 2014. The most recent imports are led by Refined Petroleum which represent 32.4% of the total imports of Sierra Leone, followed by Rice, which account for 4.77%.

Imports

Foodstuffs, machinery and equipment, fuels and lubricants, chemicals

Imports - partners:

China 13.2%, US 7.1%, India 6.8%, UK 6.6%, Belgium 6.1%, Netherlands 4.7%, South Africa 4.6%

(2014)

Exports:

$533.3 million (2015 est.)

$2.086 bill ion (2014 est.)

Exports - commodities:

Diamonds, rutile, cocoa, coffee, fish

Exports - partners:

China 80%, Belgium 8.8% (2014)

GDP is: US$ 6 billion (2015 estimate)

GDP - composition, by sector of origin:

Agriculture: 66.8%

Industry: 3.4%

Services: 29.8% (2015 est.)

Agriculture - products:

Rice, coffee, cocoa, palm kernels, palm oil, peanuts; poultry, cattle, sheep, pigs; fish

Industries:

Diamond mining; iron ore, rutile and bauxite mining; small-scale manufacturing (beverages, textiles, cigarettes, footwear); petroleum refining, small commercial ship repair

Sierra Leone, on the west coast of Africa, covers an area of about 74,000 km2 and borders on Guinea and Liberia. The country is well endowed with natural resources. About 45 per cent of the people are under 15 years of age and 60 per cent are less than 50. According to the World Bank’s 2007 estimate, the country has a total population of about 5.8 million and the population is growing at an annual rate of 1.8 per cent.

The country has nine major river basins and three minor ones. Surface water is abundant. During the year a six-month rainy season with overabundant precipitation follows a six-month dry season. The country is rich in diamonds, and mining is highly developed.

Agriculture

Agriculture is a key economic activity. According to World Bank estimates accounts for more than 44 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). About 74 per cent of the land is cultivable and there is considerable potential for agricultural development. The sector currently employs 75 per cent of the country’s labour force.

Uplands account for 80 per cent of the total land area and are relatively low in fertility. The lowlands, which cover about 20 per cent of total land area, comprise fertile swamps and they have considerable agricultural potential if adequately managed. Traditionally up to 15 different crops are grown in mixed stands in one season. Rain-fed upland rice is the main crop.

Demographics

Population Estimates

year population est.1950 1,944,0011960 2,181,7011970 2,514,1511980 3,086,4061990 3,931,2082000 4,060,7092010 5,775,9022020 7,160,3732025 7,874,1952050 11,391,7872075 13,834,1912100 14,489,326Source: UN - WPP 2015 Revision (medium).

For a Province by Province breakdown of population, visit: http://www.geohive.com/cntry/sierraleone.aspx

Social Indicators

Population growth rate (average annual %) 2010-2015 1.9

Urban population growth rate (average annual %)

2010-2015 2.8

Rural population growth rate (average annual %)

2010-2015 1.3

Urban population (%) 2014 39.6

Population aged 0-14 years (%) 2014 41.2

Population aged 60+ years (females and males, % of total)

2014 4.5/4.2

Sex ratio (males per 100 females) 2014 98.7

Life expectancy at birth (females and males, years)

2010-2015 45.6/45.1

Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births) 2010-2015 116.7

Fertility rate, total (live births per woman) 2010-2015 4.8

Contraceptive prevalence (ages 15-49, %) 2007-2013 16.6

International migrant stock (000 and % of total population)

mid-2013 96.4/1.6Including refugees.

Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR mid-2014 2429

Education: Government expenditure (% of GDP)

2007-2013 2.9

Education: Primary-secondary gross enrolment ratio (f/m per 100)

2007-2013 88.8/91.6

Education: Female third-level students (% of total)

2007-2013 28.8

Intentional homicide rate (per 100,000 population)

2008-2012 1.9

People and the Environment

Threatened species 2014 156

Forested area (% of land area) 2012 37.2

Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas 2014 3.8

protected (%)

Population using improved drinking water sources (%)

2012 60.0

Population using improved sanitation facilities (%)

2012 13.0

CO2 emission estimates (000 metric tons and metric tons per capita)

2011 898/0.2

Energy supply per capita (Gigajoules) 2012 11.0

The Health of the Nation

Statistics

Total population (2015) 6,453,000 Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 1 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2015) 49/51 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 0) not available Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2013) 444/423 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2013) 228 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2013) 11.8

The Human Development Index

Sierra Leone’s HDI value for 2014 is 0.413— which put the country in the low human development category—positioning it at 181 out of 188 countries and territories. Between 1980 and 2014, Sierra Leone’s HDI value increased from 0.268 to 0.413, an increase of 54.0 percent or an average annual increase of about 1.28 percent.

Between 1980 and 2014, Sierra Leone’s life expectancy at birth increased by 10.3 years, mean years of schooling increased by 2.1 years and expected years of schooling increased by 3.9 years. Sierra Leone’s GNI per capita increased by about 54.4 percent between 1980 and 2014.

Sierra Leone’s 2014 HDI of 0.413 is below the average of 0.505 for countries in the low human development group and below the average of 0.518 for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. From Sub-Saharan Africa, countries which are close to Sierra Leone in 2014 HDI rank and to some extent in population size are Guinea and Burundi, which have HDIs ranked 182 and 184 respectively

Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) The HDI is an average measure of basic human development achievements in a country. Like all averages, the HDI masks inequality in the distribution of human development across the population at the country level. The 2010 HDR introduced the IHDI, which takes into account inequality in all three dimensions of the HDI by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The IHDI is basically the HDI discounted for inequalities. The ‘loss’ in human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI, and can be expressed as a percentage. As the inequality in a country increases, the loss in human development also increases. We also present the coefficient of human inequality as a direct measure of inequality which is an unweighted average of inequalities in three dimensions. Sierra Leone’s HDI for 2014 is 0.413. However, when the value is discounted for inequality, the HDI falls to 0.241, a loss of 41.7 percent due to inequality in the distribution of the HDI dimension indices. Guinea and Burundi show losses due to inequality of 36.5 percent and 32.6 percent respectively. The average loss due to inequality for low HDI

countries is 32.0 percent and for Sub-Saharan Africa it is 33.3 percent. The Human inequality coefficient for Sierra Leone is equal to 40.0 percent.

The Gender Inequality Index

The 2010 HDR introduced the GII, which reflects gender-based inequalities in three dimensions – reproductive health, empowerment, and economic activity. Reproductive health is measured by maternal mortality and adolescent birth rates; empowerment is measured by the share of parliamentary seats held by women and attainment in secondary and higher education by each gender; and economic activity is measured by the labour market participation rate for women and men. The GII can be interpreted as the loss in human development due to inequality between female and male achievements in the three GII dimensions. Sierra Leone has a GII value of 0.650, ranking it 145 out of 155 countries in the 2014 index. In Sierra Leone, 12.4 percent of parliamentary seats are held by women, and 10.0 percent of adult women have reached at least a secondary level of education compared to 21.7 percent of their male counterparts. For every 100,000 live births, 1100 women die from pregnancy related causes; and the adolescent birth rate is 100.7 births per 1,000 women of ages 15-19. Female participation in the labour market is 65.7 percent compared to 69.0 for men. In comparison, Burundi is ranked at 109 on this index.

Gender Development Index (GDI) In the 2014 HDR, HDRO introduced a new measure, the GDI, based on the sex-disaggregated Human Development Index, defined as a ratio of the female to the male HDI. The GDI measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health (measured by female and male life expectancy at birth), education (measured by female and male expected years of schooling for children and mean years for adults aged 25 years and older); and command over economic resources (measured by female and male estimated GNI per capita. Country groups are based on absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI. This means that the grouping takes into consideration inequality in favour of men or women equally. The GDI is calculated for 161 countries. The 2014 female HDI value for Sierra Leone is 0.370 in contrast with 0.454 for males, resulting in a GDI value of 0.814. In comparison, GDI values for Guinea and Burundi are 0.778 and 0.911 respectively.

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)The 2010 HDR introduced the MPI, which identifies multiple deprivations in the same households in education, health and living standards. The education and health dimensions are each based on two indicators, while the standard of living dimension is based on six indicators. All of the indicators needed to construct the MPI for a household are taken from the same household survey. The indicators are weighted to create a deprivation score, and the deprivation scores are computed for each household in the survey. A deprivation score of 33.3 percent (one-third of the weighted indicators), is used to distinguish between the poor and non-poor. If the household deprivation score is 33.3 percent or greater, the household (and everyone in it) is classified as multi-dimensionally poor. Households with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 20 percent but less than 33.3 percent are near multidimensional poverty. Finally, households with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 50 percent live in severe multidimensional poverty. The most recent survey data that were publically available for Sierra Leone’s MPI estimation refer to 2013. In Sierra Leone 77.5 percent of the population (4,724 thousand people) are multi-dimensionally poor while an additional 14.6 percent live near multidimensional poverty (0,890 thousand people). The breadth of deprivation (intensity) in Sierra Leone, which is the average of deprivation scores experienced by people in multidimensional poverty, is 53.0 percent. The MPI, which is the share of the population that is multi-dimensionally poor, adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations, is 0.411. Guinea and Burundi have MPIs of 0.425 and 0.442 respectively. The multidimensional poverty headcount is 20.9 percentage points higher than income poverty. This implies that individuals living above the income poverty line may still suffer deprivations in education, health and other living conditions.. The contributions of deprivations in each dimension to overall poverty complete a comprehensive picture of people living in multidimensional poverty in Sierra Leone. Figures for Guinea and Burundi are also shown in the table for comparison.

Rural population (2014) 1 2 3 4

Employment to population ratio (% ages 15 and older) 65.2 63.9

60.7 65.7

Labour force participation rate (% ages 15 and older) 67.3 68.1

64.3 70.9

Female 65.7 57.2

49.5 65.4

Male 69.0 79.1

78.7 76.6

Share of employment in agriculture (% of total employment) 68.5 -- 36.9 59.0 Share of employment in services (% of total employment) 25.0 -- 39.1 30.0 Labour force with tertiary education (%) -- -- -- -- Vulnerable employment (% of total employment) 92.4 -- 54.0 -- Total unemployment (% of labour force) 3.4 9.7 5.6 11.9 Long term unemployment (% of labour force) -- -- -- -- Youth unemployment (% of youth labour force) 5.2 9.8 14.6 13.5 Youth not in school or employment (% ages 15-24) -- -- -- -- Labour productivity: output per worker (2011 PPP $) 3,093 -- -- -- Child labour (% ages 5-14 years) 26.0 23.

8 14.5 24.7

Domestic workers (% of total employment) Female 0.5 -- -- -- Male 0.4 -- -- -- Working poor, PPP $2 per day (% of total employment) 82.8 67.

5 33.8 70.5

Unemployment benefits recipients (% of unemployed ages 15-64) 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.3 Mandatory paid maternity leave (days) 84.0 85.

0 99.0 90.0

Old age pension recipients (% of statutory pension age population) 0.9 9.8 51.0 21.9 Internet users (% of population) 2.1 16.

0 31.9 19.3

Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 76.7 65.6

91.2 71.1

Table Key 1. Sierra Leone, 2. Low HDI countries, 3. Developing countries, 4. Sub-Saharan Africa.

Number of rural poor (million, approximate) (2014) 2,478,364.

Who are Sierra Leone’s poor rural people and where are they? - based on: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues/issues26/ The country’s poorest people are landless people and small-scale farmers, particularly women, who head rural households.

The rural poor depend largely on agriculture, fishing, forestry, and related small-scale industries and services.

The rural poor are not a homogeneous group. One important way to classify the rural poor is according to their access

to agricultural land: cultivators have access to land as small landowners and tenants, and non-cultivators are landless,

unskilled workers.

Cultivators, who form the bulk of the rural poor in developing countries, are directly engaged in producing and

managing crops and livestock. Since these households cannot sustain themselves on the small parcels of land they

own or cultivate, they provide labour to others for both farm and non-farm activities inside and outside their villages.

Some members of these households migrate to towns or cities on either a rotational or a long-term basis. In many

countries, both small landowners and tenants are under increasing pressure to get out of the agriculture sector

altogether.

Non-cultivators are perhaps the poorest among the rural poor. Their numbers have been rising rapidly because of the

natural increase in population and resource less rural dwellers. These workers depend on seasonal demand for labour

in agriculture and in rural informal, small-scale industries and services. The landless rural workers are vulnerable to

fluctuations in the demand for labour, wage rates, and food prices.

Rural women tend to suffer more than rural men. Their poverty and low social status in most societies is a major

contributor to chronic poverty. Substantial evidence from many countries shows that focusing on the needs and

empowerment of women is one of the keys to human development.

What Do the Poor Own?

The economic conditions faced by the rural poor are affected by a variety of assets (and the returns on them) held at

the household, community, and supra-community levels. The poor's physical assets include natural capital (private

and common property rights in land, pastures, forest, and water), machines and tools and structures, stocks of

domestic animals and food, and financial capital.

Their human assets are the labour pools—comprising workers of varying ages, genders, skills, and health—in the

households and communities. Their infrastructural assets are publicly and privately provided transport and

communications, access to schools and health centres, storage, potable water, and sanitation. Their institutional

assets include their legally protected rights and freedoms and the extent of their participation in decision making in

households and communities, as well as at the supra-community level. The first two categories of assets are largely

regulated through formal and informal networks among individuals and communities. Most rural people, particularly

women and those in landless households, are greatly handicapped by inadequate assets and the low and volatile

returns on them.

The differences among the rural poor are more clearly reflected in their links to the economy, which determine how

they use their assets and participate in production. All of the rural poor are engaged in the production of both

tradable and non-tradable goods and services. Artisans and unskilled workers provide many non-tradable services and

some non-tradable products (such as staple foods) that small cultivators also produce. Only cultivators, however, have

access to small parcels of land through ownership or (sharecropping) tenancy. They are also the only groups of poor

people who own or rent physical capital such as tools, implements, and machinery. Artisans and small-scale farmers

have only limited amounts of physical capital. They have only limited access to financial capital and acquire it largely

through informal agents or institutions, except for tenants, who can use their landlords as conduits to formal credit.

Borrowed capital is often costly and is used to maintain consumption during hard times or to buy supplies and

equipment needed for farming. Households' labour is used both within the family—for work done by unpaid family

members—and to earn the wages paid to landless, unskilled workers in farm and nonfarm activities.

All groups of the rural poor are vulnerable to serious risk owing to changes in weather, health, markets, investment,

and public policy. The resulting fluctuations in the prices and quantities of their assets and of what they produce can

either deepen their poverty or give them opportunities to escape from it. The main reason is that the rural poor have

a very low capacity to absorb abrupt financial shocks. In addition, economic crises and natural disasters can bring

about sharp increases in poverty and make it more difficult for the poor to escape it.

How Rural Poverty Is Created

Numerous characteristics of a country's economy and society, as well as some external influences, create and

perpetuate rural poverty:

political instability and civil strife;

systemic discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or caste;

ill-defined property rights or unfair enforcement of rights to agricultural land and other natural resources;

high concentration of land ownership and asymmetrical tenancy arrangements;

corrupt politicians and rent-seeking public bureaucracies;

economic policies that discriminate against or exclude the rural poor from the development process and

accentuate the effects of other poverty-creating processes;

large and rapidly growing families with high dependency ratios;

market imperfections owing to high concentration of land and other assets and distortionary public policies;

and

external shocks owing to changes in the state of nature (for example, climatic changes) and conditions in the

international economy.

Biases in national economic and social policies can contribute to rural poverty by excluding the rural poor from the

benefits of development and accentuating the effects of other poverty-creating processes. Policy biases that generally

work against the rural poor include:

urban bias in public investment for infrastructure and provision of safety nets;

implicit taxation of agricultural products through so-called support prices and an overvalued exchange rate;

direct taxation of agricultural exports and import subsidies;

subsidies for capital-intensive technologies;

favouring export crops over food crops; and

bias in favour of large landowners and commercial producers with respect to rights of land ownership and

tenancy, publicly provided extension services, and access to (subsidized) credit.

These policies can have both short- and long-term effects on the rural poor. The effects are particularly significant in

the context of the structural adjustment programs that many developing countries have undertaken to restore

macroeconomic stability and expand the capacity of the economy to increase production, employment, and incomes.

Policies for Reducing Rural Poverty

To design policies that have a chance of effectively helping the rural poor, the focus of policy should be on four major

groups:

landless tenants who cultivate other people's land;

landless labourers who depend on casual or long-term employment in the farm or nonfarm sectors; and

women, who could also be part of any of the three preceding groups.

All of these groups will benefit from good macroeconomic management—which helps keep inflation in check and

maintain unsubsidised prices—because it facilitates sustained economic growth through private investment and

competitive markets. Needless to say, unfair laws or poor enforcement of existing laws, exclusion of the poor from

decision making, and pervasive corruption in the public sector are no less detrimental to the well-being of the poor

than they are to the country's overall economic growth.

Achieving agricultural growth by applying new technologies and listening how best to blend tradition with the

benefits of modernity is one of the most important ways to reduce rural poverty. The impact of such efforts on the

rural poor, however, depends on initial conditions, the structure of relevant institutions, and incentives. Research

shows that agricultural stagnation has harmed the rural poor in sub-Saharan Africa by creating food shortages and

higher prices that have reduced their ability to buy food and find work.

Some radical ways of boosting productivity

land and capital markets are not distorted by a high concentration of ownership of natural resources

(agricultural land), including unfair tenancy contracts, and repression in the capital markets (with restricted

access to finance);

public policy on pricing, taxes, and the exchange rate does not penalize agriculture and encourage or

subsidize labour displacement;

public investment in basic education and health care is high and used effectively; farmer literacy and good

health have great influence on farm productivity;

public sector support for agricultural research is strong and resulting improvements are made available to

small farmers is effective;

physical capital, like irrigation systems, access roads, is adequately maintained;

safety nets and social assistance are available for the very poor, particularly the landless (casual) workers and

rural women, in the form of public works programs, microfinance, and food subsidies; and

the rural poor are directly involved in the identification, design, and implementation of programs to ensure

effective use of resources and equitable distribution of benefits.

The markets in which the rural poor participate are those for products, inputs (labour and non-labour), and finance

(from formal and informal sources). Several important features of these markets can affect conditions in rural areas.

The infrastructure that directly affects the rural sector's productivity and the rural poor's quality of life includes the

economic (transport, communications, extension services, and irrigation) and the social (education, health care,

water, and sanitation). Given that most elements of a country's infrastructure are provided through public funding,

the level of spending, cost effectiveness, quality of service, and access of the rural poor to infrastructure and public

services have important effects on human capital and productivity in rural areas.

Transfers, which are both private and public, provide some insurance against anticipated and unanticipated economic

shocks. Most of the rural poor depend on private transfers among households, extended families, and other kinship

groups. Public transfers can take the form of redistribution of such assets as land, employment on public works

projects, and targeted subsidies for inputs and some consumer products. These transfers supplement or displace

private transfers, depending on the policy instrument and how it is used. But these channels—markets, infrastructure,

and transfers—do not work in the same way for all of the rural poor because each group has quite different links to

the economy.

Key Policy Components Needed to Reduce Rural Poverty

So, what are the key elements when crafting a policy to reduce rural poverty?

Competitive markets, macroeconomic stability, and public investment in the physical and social infrastructure are

widely recognized as important requirements for sustained economic growth and reduced poverty. In addition, the

first requirement of a strategy to reduce rural poverty is to provide the enabling environment and resources for those

in the rural sector who are engaged in the agricultural production and distribution system.

Other policy components for national strategies—involving the government, the private (for-profit) sector, and civil

society—to reduce rural poverty can include:

Information gathering. The rural poor face many different problems and are not a homogeneous group. Therefore, a

sustained effort must be made to gather information about the particular problems they face so that they can be

adequately addressed.

Focus on building assets. The government should assess what assets the poor need most to help them earn

more. This could be agricultural land or other resources, access to credit, or improvements in health and

education. Dependence on raw labour, without a focus on building other assets, is the single most important

source of persistent poverty.

The right to adequate land and water. A broad-based land reform program—including land titling, land

redistribution, and fair and enforceable tenancy contracts—is critical for reducing rural poverty. It can make

small (marginal) landowners and tenants more efficient producers and raise their standards of living.

Basic health care and literacy. The rural poor need to build and strengthen their human capital so they can

get out of poverty and contribute more to the economy and society. Basic health care (immunization,

provision of clean water, and family planning) and education (literacy, schooling, and technical training)—

particularly for women and children—are essential building blocks and should be accessible at reasonable

cost.

Local involvement. The infrastructure and services associated with health and education can be funded and

maintained best if the target groups are involved in making decisions about the design, implementation,

monitoring, and accountability.

Providing infrastructure. The rural poor cannot make the best use of their resources, including human

capital, if either the quantity or the quality of some of the key parts of the country's physical infrastructure

(irrigation, transport, and communications) and support services (research and extension) is inadequate. The

social and physical infrastructure and services can be funded and maintained best—that is, they will be cost-

effective and of reasonable quality—if the target groups are involved in designing, implementing, and

monitoring them, as well as in ensuring accountability of the government officials responsible for them.

Targeted credit. Informal and formal sources of credit often are too costly for, or unavailable to, the rural

poor. Targeted public sector rural credit programs, especially if they are subsidized, benefit the non-poor far

more than the poor. The poor want credit that is available on acceptable terms and when they need it.

Recent experiments with community-based credit programs, in which the poor actively participate in the

making of lending decisions that are subject to peer accountability, have been successful in reaching target

groups at reasonable cost.

Public works. A large and increasing proportion of the rural poor depends on wage labour, because they have

either no asset other than raw labour or very few assets: limited quantities of land and domestic animals. A

flexible public works program can greatly help the near landless and the landless smooth out household

consumption and avoid transient poverty. If it is used on a sustained basis, it can also strengthen the

bargaining power of the poor in rural areas.

Communications

Telephones - mobile cellular

Total: 4.8 mill ion

Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 83 (2014 est.)

The Internet

Having emerged from more than a decade of civil war, Sierra Leone since 2002 has enjoyed greater political stability.

Economic growth has been rapid in recent years. The country’s traditional telecommunications infrastructure suffered

considerable damage during the war years, and has since also suffered from neglect and underinvestment. However,

the mobile sector has experienced strong growth, largely reflecting the poor state of the fixed-line infrastructure, with

competition between five GSM networks. Some consolidation has taken place, and in October 2014 Comium had its

licence suspended following its continued inability to pay licence fees or creditors.

The state-owned fixed-line incumbent Sierratel has entered the mobile market with a CDMA2000 1x network which it

uses to provide fixed-wireless access and broadband internet services following an upgrade to the EV-DO standard.

This development saw it become the country’s first 3G mobile network operator. Other 3G services based on HSPA

technology were launched in 2011 and 2012.

The regulator has in recent years responded to customer complaints of poor service by obliging mobile operators to

improve services and network capabilities. In this area they are competing with a significant number of wireless

broadband network operators that have emerged as providers of converged internet and VoIP telephony services.

Sierra Leone depended entirely on satellites for international connections until February 2013 when it was connected

to the ACE submarine cable. This has considerably improved bandwidth capabilities and is expected to bring down the

price of broadband which has hitherto been extremely expensive.

Key developments:

Construction starts of 400km northern corridor fibre cable; government pledges national fibre infrastructure by 2017;

Comium loses its licence after failing to address debt and network problems; Sierratel relaunches a fixed-telephony

network following $30 million investment; privatisation of national telco Sierratel in progress; international gateway

monopoly under review; first international fibre optic submarine cable lands; new mobile networks expected to

launch following market consolidation; mobile quality of service and pricing under review; Thuraya signs agreement

with Bharti Airtel to provide mobile satellite services; Airtel contracts Flexenclosure to build a combined data and

telecom centre in Freetown; report includes recent market developments.

Estimated market penetration rates in Sierra Leone’s telecoms sector – end-2015 (e)

Mobile 44%

Fixed 0.4%

Internet 1.8%

(Source: BuddeComm based on various sources)

Industry

Despite efforts to diversify the domestic economy, including considerable investment in tourism, mineral exports remain the main foreign currency earner. Sierra Leone is a major producer of gem-quality diamonds. Though rich in diamonds, it has historically struggled to manage their exploitation and export.

Sierra Leone has one of the world's largest deposits of rutile, a titanium ore used as paint pigment and welding rod coatings.

Resource Governance

Industry Transparency:

Sierra Leone has obtained an improved rank of 35 (tied with Malaysia and ahead of China) in the Resource Governance Index (RGI). This measures the quality of governance in the mining and extractive industries. Sierra Leone is also

Sierra Leone is a candidate for the Extraction Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).

Following the National Minerals Agency Act 2012, the National Minerals Agency (NMA) gradually assumed full responsibility for the oversight of all extractives industry management, streamlining the requirements of the industry which previously entailed communications with 3 separate government agencies.

Secure transportation network: Following recent geologically successful mining expansion within Sierra Leone, the country's infrastructure now supports reliable, structured and extensive logistical and shipping capabilities.

Stabilisation: Sierra Leone's banking systems have been stabilised for well in excess of 10 years, and its legislative system largely follows the UK's legal and structural framework.

Industry, value added (current US$)

The latest value for Industry, value added (current US$) in Sierra Leone was $315,626,900 as of 2013. Over the past 49

years, the value for this indicator has fluctuated between $349,788,600 in 1994 and $71,891,590 in 1986. Industry

corresponds to ISIC divisions 10-45 and includes manufacturing (ISIC divisions 15-37). It comprises value added in

mining, manufacturing (also reported as a separate subgroup), construction, electricity, water, and gas. Value added is

the net output of a sector after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate inputs. It is calculated without

making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or depletion and degradation of natural resources.

http://chamberofcommerce.sl/

Collaboration - https://www.healthpovertyaction.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/06/Healthy-Revenues-extractives-industry-Sierra-Leone-report-June-2015.pdf

The artisanal fishing industry in Sierra Leone - http://ejfoundation.org/gallery/artisanal-fishing-industry-sierra-leone

Artisanal fishing is critical to Sierra Leone. It directly or indirectly employs over 200,000 people and over half of the fish consumed in a country where 65% of animal protein comes from seafood.

Oil

In Sierra Leone upstream oil activity is situated entirely in the exploration phase. All searching occurs offshore with the government parceling its ocean territory into 14 blocks. Eighteen different companies have been awarded licenses to explore in 11 of the blocks. Three of the blocks remain unlicensed. (See Table 1.)

Oil was first discovered by Andarko in 2009 (Venus), followed another discovery by the company in 2010 (Mercury). Both Venus and Mercury are in the SL-7B block. In 2012, Tullow Oil found oil in the same block which it shares with Andarko and Reposol. In late October of 2013, Lukoil and Oranto completed a well in SL-05 and the government reported that the companies have found “high quality” oil. So far, these discoveries have not resulted in commercial production, however, each new find creates greater interest in Sierra Leone’s off shore holdings and more potential bidders for blocks.

Current research

Sula, through its wholly owned Sierra Leone subsidiary Blue Horizon, holds the exploration licence to the Ferensola Project, which covers 153 sq km of savannah and hills in the north, prospective for iron, gold and coltan, an ore rich in metals used by the steel and electronics industries.

Natural strength.

The Chinese have led the way, with the Ministry of Mines and Mineral Resources signing a memorandum of understanding with Kingho Energy Group for more than $6bn of inward investment. Hainan, one of the biggest agricultural investment firms in China, ploughed $1.8bn into rubber and rice. Still, it is mining that has had the most influential impact on the economy; iron ore has established Sierra Leone as a major global natural resources player.

The huge mines developed by UK-listed firms African Minerals and London Mining were hailed by IMF chief Christine Lagarde as world-class in 2013. Unfortunately, no one could have predicted the challenges that were to hit last year. The iron ore price slump and ebola have had a major impact on Sierra Leone’s economy, as well as on other countries in the region, and hindered the growth that was flourishing.

Ebola damageThe outbreak was confirmed last May and since then, sadly, has killed more than 3,000 people in Sierra Leone, as well as significantly more throughout West Africa.

The human cost has been enormous, but ebola has also stalled foreign investment and economic development. The World Bank estimates Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone will collectively lose at least $1.6bn as a result of the outbreak.

Many operators in the region experienced considerable setbacks through temporary closures. This has been devastating for the artisanal mining sector, which provides a livelihood to some of the country’s poorest people, and for the agricultural sector too, because the income generated from mining is frequently invested in farming in the rainy season. At the top of the pyramid, the two success stories of the country’s mining industry – London Mining and African Mining – have faltered and failed. As Chinese investment started to slow, hitting its weakest pace since 1990, and the iron ore price slumped below the $50 mark, both companies had to close due to a lack of funding.

It is something that we at Sula feel very strongly about; knowing that, although we have provided significant help to our friends and neighbours, others have not felt the need before now. Prior to the outbreak, we built two infirmaries in the towns of Kondembaia and Yara. We also constructed roads linking all the towns and villages in the Diang Chiefdom, which helped with the transportation of sick and injured people, as well as opening up trade between regions.

Into the futureDecember 2014, Sula declared a high-grade oxidised resource of 55.5 million tonnes at 45.39 percent iron and a total resource of 514.5 million tonnes at 31.8 percent iron on its on its Ferensola iron ore project. In addition to the above, our consultants SRK identified an exploration target comprising an additional 100-250 million tonnes. That’s not bad for a small (though, I would maintain, supremely flexible) company, working with limited financial resources. However, we are also looking at ensuring Sula is not a one-trick pony. So, further gold exploration programmes are currently being finalised at existing targets.

Meanwhile, they have recently commenced exploration for coltan in two areas of interest in the northern and southern ends of the licence area. Coltan (short for columbite-tantalite) is a dull black ore, principally made up of niobium and tantalum. Niobium is used as an alloy in super-steel products and 70 percent of tantalum is used in capacitors in electronic products.

http://www.sierra-rutile.com/overview.aspx

http://www.africa-energy.com/sierra-leone?type=articles

Transport

There are a number of systems of transport in Sierra Leone, which has a road, air and water infrastructure, including a network of highways and several airports.

There are 11,300 kilometres of highways in Sierra Leone, of which 904 km (562 miles)are paved (about 8% of the roads). Sierra Leone highways are linked to Conakry, Guinea, and Monrovia, Liberia.

Sierra Leone has the largest natural harbour on the African continent, allowing international shipping through the Queen Elizabeth II Quay in the Cline Town area of eastern Freetown or through Government Wharf in central Freetown. There are 800 km (497 mi) of waterways in Sierra Leone, of which 600 km (373 mi) are navigable year-round. Major port cities are Bonthe, Freetown, Sherbro Island and Pepel.

There are ten regional airports in Sierra Leone, and one international airport. The Lungi International Airport located in the coastal town of Lungi in Northern Sierra Leone is the primary airport for domestic and international travel to or from Sierra Leone. Passengers cross the river to Aberdeen Heliports in Freetown by hovercraft, ferry or a helicopter. Helicopters are also available from the airport to other major cities in the country. The airport has paved runways longer than 3,047m. The other airports have unpaved runways, and seven have runways 914 to 1,523 metres long; the remaining two have shorter runways.

International Assistance

A review of the role of international assistance in the growth of the Sierra Leone economy – pre Ebola

Phillip Michael Kargbo's UNU-WIDER working paper, 'Impact of Foreign Aid on Economic Growth in Sierra Leone: Empirical Analysis' examines the impact of foreign aid on growth in Sierra Leone using a variety of econometric approaches. The paper finds that in the period 1970-2007 aid has a significant contribution in promoting economic growth in the country. It also shows that the effect of aid on economic growth during the period of war is either weak or non-existent and that aid during the pre-war period was marginally more effective than aid during the post-war period. These latter results suggest that the impact of aid may change with time.

The Impact of Aid on Economic Growth in Sierra Leone Sierra Leone is a country characterized by high levels of aid dependence and unimpressive economic performance, as well as by long term political instability and armed conflict. Development aid has historically been a high proportion of Sierra Leone’s gross domestic product and surged after the civil conflict that took place between 1991 and 2002. Annual aid disbursed to Sierra Leone between 1970 and 2007 stands at an average of 14.2% of GDP, a figure much higher than the regional average of 3.7% for Africa as a whole. Despite this level of support Sierra Leone's economic performance has remained wanting in terms of both growth and poverty reduction. In his working paper Kargbo uses a variety of econometric approaches to assess the effect aid had on economic growth in Sierra Leone in the period from 1970 to 2007. The paper presents three main findings. Aid had a significant positive effect on economic growth over the period as a whole. The effect of aid on growth during Sierra Leone's eleven year civil conflict, 1991-2002, is either weak or non-existent.Aid had a greater positive impact on growth prior to the conflict than it has had in the post-war period. These findings are to a large extent consistent with a great portion of the macro level aid-growth literature. Indeed the UNU-WIDER paper “Aid Effectiveness: Opening the Black Box” by Channing Arndt, Sam Jones and Finn Tarp finds that a similar positive link between aid and growth is present on a more general, cross-country, level. However some case studies, for example, of Bangladesh, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea and Pakistan, have not teased out a similar statistically significant link between aid and growth. If the results of the paper are to help further our understanding of the relationship between aid and economic growth it is important to discuss why this may be the case The general positive impact of aid on economic growth Kargbo finds that aid had a significant positive effect on economic growth in Sierra Leone in the period 1970-2007.The author suggests three reasons why this relationship may be present in Sierra Leone but not found in the other case studies mentioned above. First the differing motivations that lead to donors granting aid may well determine how effective that aid is in promoting growth. As one of the poorest countries in the world Sierra Leone is likely to receive aid targeted towards generating economic growth and reducing poverty. While donors may wish to see aid promoting democracy it is likely that this is not their central goal in Sierra Leone where as it may be in some of the other cases mentioned above. Kargbo posits that aid targeted at economic growth is likely to be more successful in generating it than aid targeted at other areas. Second aid is likely to have a positive impact on economic growth in countries, like Sierra Leone, which require capital in order to fund the foreign imports essential for growing their economy. Sierra Leone is a non-industrialized country and thus needs to import machinery for the few domestic factories and industries that do exist, mining equipment to support its large mineral-producing sector, and tradeable commodities for the domestic market. Giving this high level

of imports, and the likelihood that exports will be much lower, a foreign-exchange gap is inevitable. Inflows of foreign assistance help to fill this gap and thus promote economic growth. Finally while there is history of corruption in Sierra Leone it may be that this is not widespread enough to ensure that aid becomes an ineffective factor vis-a-vis growth. Furthermore, past and present political regimes in Sierra Leone have been associated with informal donors such as China and Libya. This informal aid could be used by politicians for their own purposes without affecting the development effectiveness of official aid. While there is some evidence of official aid being misused by the bureaucracy aid corruption by politicians may largely affect non-official aid. The paper suggests that if the purpose of the donor aid to Sierra Leone is to promote growth then its findings should be an inspiration to donors to continue giving aid. However, although the findings show that the impact of aid on growth is positive and significant, the magnitude of this effect is not that high. Consequently other factors such as private investment and the quality of institutions need to be strengthened in order to allow for an enhanced growth effort in the country. Aid and growth during the civil conflict: 1991-2002 The author's results suggest that if aid had any impact on economic growth during Sierra Leone's eleven year civil conflict it was distinctly unimpressive. Kargbo makes the reasonable suggestion that this should not be particularly surprising. Civil conflicts inevitably destabilize and damage the political and economic institutions that are necessary if aid is to be put to effective use. This is not to say that donors should not grant any aid during civil conflicts. Instead aid given under such conditions should be viewed as a measure targeting short-term economic stability rather than long term economic growth. Aid and Growth in the post-war period: 2002-07 The paper gives three reasons for singling out the post-war period to find out if aid remains positively significant on economic growth during this period. First since the end of the 11-year civil conflict Sierra Leone has had substantial inflows of foreign aid from a diverse range of donors sympathetic to the destruction of human resources, and social and physical infrastructure in the country. Second, there has been considerable strengthening of the countries policies and institutions. Third there have been reports and attacks on the government as well as the donor community for their misuse of foreign aid flows after the civil conflict. The fact that the results show that aid had a positive impact on growth during the post-war era is perhaps unsurprising given the substantial influx of aid to Sierra Leone during this period and the reform of its institutions to standards surpassing their pre-war levels. The interesting question then is why aid was less effective in promoting growth in the post-war period than in the pre-war period. The paper suggests two possible reasons for this finding. First the economic growth experienced during the post-war growth may have been substantially influenced by factors other than foreign aid. Growth during the pre-war period was mostly associated with the agricultural sector which can be largely aid funded. In the post-war period growth seems to have inspired by increases in the services sector which receive little aid funding. Second the adverse effects associated with damaged institutions during the civil conflict may have carried over into the post-war period. There is evidence of democratic reforms in the post-war period however these effects may take some time to develop. Kargbo concludes that his results should provide donors with encouragement to continue their effort to provide aid to capital-starved nations. However he cautions that donors should perhaps be more hesitant with respect to the amount of development aid they disburse to countries during conflicts.

Monitor Assistance Loans to Sierra Leone

https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/countries/SL/projects/

Appendix 1

A brief look, in numbers, of life in Sierra Leone

Under-5 mortality rank 1

Under-5 mortality rate (U5MR), 1990 257

Under-5 mortality rate (U5MR), 2012 182

U5MR by sex 2012, male 190

U5MR by sex 2012, female 173

Infant mortality rate (under 1), 1990 153

Infant mortality rate (under 1), 2012 117

Neonatal mortality rate 2012 50

Total population (thousands) 2012 5978.7

Annual no. of births (thousands) 2012 222.5

Annual no. of under-5 deaths (thousands) 2012 39

GNI per capita (US$) 2012 580

Life expectancy at birth (years) 2012 45.3

Total adult literacy rate (%) 2008-2012* 43.3

Low birthweight (%) 2008-2012* 10.5

Early initiation of breastfeeding (%), 2008-2012* 44.6

Exclusive breastfeeding <6 months (%), 2008-2012* 31.6

Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods 6-8 months (%), 2008-2012*

25.1

Breastfeeding at age 2 (%), 2008-2012* 48.2

Underweight (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe 21.7

Underweight (%) 2008-2012*, severe 8.3

Stunting (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe 44.4

Wasting (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe 8.5

Overweight (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & severe 9.6

Vitamin A supplementation full coverage (%) 2012 99

Iodized salt consumption (%) 2008-2012* 62.6

Use of improved drinking water sources (%) 2011, total 57.5

Use of improved drinking water sources (%) 2011, urban 84.1

Use of improved drinking water sources (%) 2011, rural 40.3

Use of improved sanitation facilities (%) 2011, total 12.9

Use of improved sanitation facilities (%) 2011, urban 22.5

Use of improved sanitation facilities (%) 2011, rural 6.7

Routine EPI vaccines financed by government (%) 2012 –

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, BCG 97

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, DPT1 94

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, DPT3 84

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, polio3 81

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, MCV 80

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, HepB3 84

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, Hib3 84

Immunization coverage (%) 2012, New-borns protected against tetanus

87

Pneumonia (%) 2008-2012*, Care seeking for suspected pneumonia

73.7

Pneumonia (%) 2008-2012*, Antibiotic treatment for suspected pneumonia

57.5

Diarrhoea (%) 2008-2012*, Treatment with oral rehydration salts (ORS)

72.6

Adult HIV prevalence (%) 2012 1.5

People of all ages living with HIV (thousands) 2012, estimate

58

People of all ages living with HIV (thousands) 2012, low 42

People of all ages living with HIV (thousands) 2012, high 82

Women living with HIV (thousands) 2012 31

Children living with HIV (thousands) 2012 5.8

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), HIV prevalence among young people (%) 2012, total

0.6

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), HIV prevalence among young people (%) 2012, male

0.3

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), HIV prevalence among young people (%) 2012, female

1.0

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), Comprehensive knowledge of HIV (%) 2008-2012*, male

–

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), Comprehensive knowledge of HIV (%) 2008-2012*, female

23.1

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), Condom use among young people with multiple partners (%) 2008-2012*, male

–

Prevention among young people (aged 15-24), Condom use among young people with multiple partners (%) 2008-2012*, female

12.4

Orphans, Children orphaned by AIDS (thousands) 2012 26

Orphans, Children orphaned due to all causes (thousands) 2012

370

Orphans, Orphan school attendance ratio (%), 2008-2012*

88

Youth (15-24 years) literacy rate (%) 2008-2012*, male 70.5

Youth (15-24 years) literacy rate (%) 2008-2012*, female

52.1

Number per 100 population 2012, mobile phones 36.1

Number per 100 population 2012, Internet users 1.3

Pre-primary school participation, Gross enrolment ratio (%) 2008 -2012*, male

6.7

Pre-primary school participation, Gross enrolment ratio (%) 2008 -2012*, female

7

Primary school participation, Gross enrolment ratio (%) 2008-2012*, male

129.4

Primary school participation, Gross enrolment ratio (%) 2008-2012*, female

120.1

Primary school participation, Net enrolment ratio (%) 2008-2012*, male

–

Primary school participation, Net enrolment ratio (%) 2008-2012*, female

–

Primary school participation, Net attendance ratio (%) 2008-2012*, male

73

Primary school participation, Net attendance ratio (%) 2008-2012*, female

75.6

Primary school participation, Survival rate to last primary grade (%) , 2008-2012*, admin. data

–

Primary school participation, Survival rate to last primary grade (%) , 2008-2012*, survey data

92.5

Secondary school participation, Net enrolment ratio (%) 2008-2012*, male

–

Secondary school participation, Net enrolment ratio (%) 2008-2012*, female

–

Secondary school participation, Net attendance ratio (%) 2008-2012*, male

39.9

Secondary school participation, Net attendance ratio (%) 2008-2012*, female

33.2

Population (thousands) 2012, total 5978.7

Population (thousands) 2012, under 18 2886.3

Population (thousands) 2012, under 5 928

Population annual growth rate (%), 1990-2012 1.8

Population annual growth rate (%), 2012-2030 1.7

Crude death rate, 1970 29.9

Crude death rate, 1990 25.9

Crude death rate, 2012 17.4

Crude birth rate, 1970 49.5

Crude birth rate, 1990 44.4

Crude birth rate, 2012 37.1

Life expectancy, 1970 34.6

Life expectancy, 1990 37.4

Life expectancy, 2012 45.3

Total fertility rate, 2012 4.8

Urbanized population (%), 2012 39.6

Average annual growth rate of urban population (%), 1990-2012

2.6

Average annual growth rate of urban population (%), 2012-2030

2.8

Women

Life expectancy: females as a % of males 2012 100.8

Adult literacy rate: females as a % of males 2008-2012* 59.7

Enrolment ratios: females as a % of males 2008-2012*, 92.8

Primary GER

Enrolment ratios: females as a % of males 2008-2012*, Secondary GER

–

Survival rate to the last grade of primary: females as a % of males 2008-2012*

–

Contraceptive prevalence (%) 2008-2012* 11

Antenatal care (%) 2008-2012*, At least one visit 93

Antenatal care (%) 2008-2012*, At least four visits 74.7

Delivery care (%) 2008-2012*, Skilled attendant at birth 62.5

Delivery care (%) 2008-2012*, Institutional delivery 50.1

Delivery care (%) 2008-2012*, C-section 4.5

Maternal mortality ratio , 2008-2012*, Reported 860

Maternal mortality ratio , 2010, Adjusted 890

Maternal mortality ratio, 2010, Lifetime risk of maternal death (1 in :)

23

Child labour (%) + 2002-2012*, , total 26

Child labour (%) + 2002-2012*, , male 27

Child labour (%) + 2002-2012*, , female 25

Child marriage (%) 2002-2012*, married by 15 17.7

Child marriage (%) 2002-2012*, married by 18 43.7

Birth registration (%) 2005-2012*, total 78

Female genital mutilation/cutting (%) 2002-2012*, prevalence, women a

88.3

Female genital mutilation/cutting (%) 2002-2012*, prevalence, daughters

13.2

Female genital mutilation/cutting (%) 2002-2012*, attitudes, support for the practice

65.9

Justification of wife-beating (%) 2002-2012*, male –

Justification of wife-beating (%) 2002-2012*, female 73.3

Violent discipline (%) + 2005-2012*, total 81.7

Violent discipline (%) + 2005-2012*, male 81.1

Violent discipline (%) + 2005-2012*, female 82.3

Appendix 2

The Peoples of Sierra Leone

Temne 35%, Mende 31%, Limba 8%, Kono 5%, Creole2%, Mandingo 2%, Loko 2%, other 15% (includes refugees from Liberia's recent civi l war, and small numbers of Europeans, Lebanese, Pakistanis, and Indians)

Languages

English (official, regular use l imited to literate minority), Mende (principal vernacular in the south), Temne (principal vernacular in the north), Krio (English-based Creole, spoken by the descendants of freed Jamaican slaves who were settled in the Freetown area, a lingua franca and a first language for 10% of the population but understood by 95%)

Religions:

Muslim 60%, Christian 10%, indigenous beliefs 30%

Population:

5,879,098 (July 2015 est.)

Age structure:

0-14 years: 41.93% (male 1,228,380/female 1,236,475)

15-24 years: 18.67% (male 532,738/female 564,828)

25-54 years: 31.85% (male 898,538/female 973,908)

55-64 years: 3.82% (male 102,915/female 121,864)

65 years and over: 3.73% (male 92,777/female 126,675) (2015 est.)

Urbanization:

Urban population: 39.9% of total population (2015)

Rate of urbanization: 2.75% annual rate of change (2010-15 est.)

Major urban areas - population:

FREETOWN (capital) 1.007 million (2015)

Sex ratio:

At birth: 1.03 male(s)/female

0-14 years: 0.99 male(s)/female

15-24 years: 0.94 male(s)/female

25-54 years: 0.92 male(s)/female

55-64 years: 0.85 male(s)/female

65 years and over: 0.73 male(s)/female

Total population: 0.94 male(s)/female (2015 est.)

Mother's mean age at first birth:

19.2

Physician’s density:

0.02 physicians/1,000 population (2010)

Hospital bed density:

0.4 beds/1,000 population (2006)

Drinking water source:

Improved:

Urban: 84.9% of population

Rural: 47.8% of population

Total: 62.6% of population

Unimproved:

Urban: 15.1% of population

Rural: 52.2% of population

Total: 37.4% of population (2015 EST.)

Sanitation facility access:

Improved:

Urban: 22.8% of population

Rural: 6.9% of population

Total: 13.3% of population

Unimproved:

Urban: 77.2% of population

Rural: 93.1% of population

Total: 86.7% of population (2015 est.)