Unlike those who, like Macky Sall and Emmanuel Macron, advocate the cancellation of the debt of African countries to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, the Minister of Economy and Finance, Romuald Wadagni, believes that others approaches should be favored. COVID19 inflicts on the whole world one of the most serious health crises and economic of its history. This crisis complicates the already significant difficulties in fragile countries and the African continent in particular. It arises even as the budgets of several countries are already bearing the brunt of the dreadful consequences of the challenge security and climate change. In this context of significant and sudden drop in revenue budget, several expenses nevertheless remain incompressible, such as those linked to the functioning of our institutions, to the fight against many endemic diseases, in pursuit of other expenses social priorities and respect for our financial commitments. Faced with this crisis, I would like to recognize and salute the strong and rapid international mobilization. The recent measures in favor of poor countries and the agreement of April 15, 2020 within the G20, illustrate this well. However, I note that the policies and instruments implemented to support the economies of developed countries are geared towards the mobilization and immediate availability of new financing aimed at containing the economic impacts of the crisis, while the measures adopted for the Africa come down mainly to either debt cancellations or moratoriums on bilateral public debt service. Several disadvantages These solutions, despite the immediate budgetary margin they offer, do not respond to the challenges mentioned above and present significant short and medium term drawbacks. Indeed, state spending are expected to grow rapidly to counter the spread of the pandemic even though we must continue to face the challenges of development. Added to this is the significant drop in revenue that comes from further reduce budgetary margins. Debt relief or a moratorium constitutes in this context, a call for the indulgence of creditors and does not provide structural solutions to the difficulties States. In addition, debt relief or a moratorium for the payment of deadlines will further tarnish the image of States and jeopardize their access to future funding. Our countries will experience a induced effect on the perception of their credit quality; what makes them would expose to inevitable subsequent sanctions from the market. A moratorium could even be considered in some documentations loan as an event of default by private creditors, which he either wanted or suffered and even if it only concerns bilateral public creditors. Beyond the rating agencies which could sanction non-compliance with a loan deadline, all the efforts made by our countries to improve the business climate and the risk perception presented in the OECD classifications in particular and used to define the borrowing rate of many loans, will only be wiped out. This is the place to remember that the debt cancellations made in over the past decade following the HIPC initiative, there has been no lack of leave bad memories both for private creditors and bilateral public lenders, some of whom are no longer never returned to finance our States, except by granting donations. However, in view of the weakness of domestic savings and the private, the debt, the good, at the best conditions of cost and duration, is essential to put our savings on a path of sustained and sustainable growth. In this context, I like to explore the following proposals in depth contained in the letter sent this week by the President Patrice Talon to the heads of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank : 1- Helping to urgently mobilize new liquidity instead of debt cancellations or moratoria. The urgent needs expressed by Africa stand at 100 billion dollars (including 44 billion for debt service). A new allocation of IMF Special Drawing Rights for both debated should be considered. It would provide an answer fast and efficient to the needs of the most vulnerable countries while preserving the sustainability of their debt. 2- Revive African economies via concessional financing. Multilateral institutions and development banks should use their credit quality to mobilize individually concessional or semi- concessional funds for the financing of African economies, at a when their access to financing at almost zero interest rate is intact, unlike African countries. Collectively, they could pool their credit qualities in a new ad hoc vehicle, dedicated to a reconstruction plan on an unprecedented scale for our countries. The European Mechanism stability could be a good source of inspiration to create a supranational vehicle having the status of privileged creditor and bringing together development partners. This mechanism could offer several types of programs adapted to the specificities of each country, ranging from the precautionary line to countries subject to risks of refinancing to major financing lines investment programs for countries with fundamentals robust macroeconomics. An example of a program might be to concentrate efforts development partners for a massive investment intended to significantly reduce the gap in basic infrastructure. For the country with unsustainable debt, this vehicle could buy back debt from discount and obtain a reduction in debt at low cost in order to avoid restructuring of future debts with consequences economic often disastrous. Finally, calls for debt relief have an “already” side. seen ”with controversial results. The option of support for adequate and responsible debt seems to me a better choice than appeal for indulgence. It is also imperative that it serve to respond to concrete needs, effectively and efficiently. This calls for the transparency in its management.