Partner Organization: Cenfri

Funding the frontier: the link between inclusive insurance market, growth and poverty reduction in Africa

Over the last decade, insurance markets in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have grown from 4.5 million risks covered to more than 60 million risks covered today. However, according to this report, insurance penetration in SSA remains amongst the lowest in the world with life penetration at 0.3% and non-life at 0.5%, limiting its intermediation potential and contribution to inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction.

The report takes stock of the state of insurance markets across a sample of 15 countries in the region (Mauritius, South Africa, Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Zambia, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia). It finds, although there is no universal development path of insurance sectors in SSA, they seem to be progressing, at varying speeds, through four different stages of market development: the establishment and corporate asset stage, the early growth and compulsory insurance stage, the retail expansion stage and the diversified retail stage.

The report highlights that, most countries in the sample are locked into the early growth and compulsory insurance stage of insurance market development due to a number of exogenous and endogenous factors, which serve as barriers to the role of insurance in growth. Exogenous factors include barriers such as low income levels, informalisation of the economy and limited financial sector development, while endogenous barriers include small markets, a shortage of skills and data, and limited distribution infrastructure.

Commenting on the report, Doubell Chamberlain, the Managing Director of Cenfri says:

Insurance contributes to growth and poverty reduction in many ways. Over the last decade, the focus in development circles has been on how insurance, or microinsurance, can support resilience, and encourage productive risk taking behavior, amongst low-income individuals.

There has been less of a focus on how insurance markets can support livelihoods of low-income adults through mobilising and intermediating capital for growth. We hope that this report stimulates a new discussion on the role of insurance in supporting economic growth in SSA and invite those interested to follow up with us or FSD Africa.”

Is cash no longer king? A surge in the use of online remittance services

Posted on by TIMOTHYRADIER

Remittances are a pivotal, though often unseen, driver of economic growth across Africa, in particular having a positive pro-poor effect on health, education and human capital development. The continent’s remittance economy has grown quietly and organically, taking up an essential role not just as a safety net, but also as a catalyst for entrepreneurship. Why is this so important? Because it changes how we should think about remittances: these flows are international development finance by another name, with the potential to be highly targeted, efficient and effective.

Remittances are an efficient, impactful and resilient form of development capital. FSD Africa has supported research by Cenfri which shows that the value of remittances in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is almost equal to that of “traditional” foreign capital flows such as overseas development assistance (ODA) and foreign direct investment (FDI). And their impact is potentially greater – especially in areas like health and education. In 2015, the region received USD39 billion in FDI and USD37.1 billion in ODA, compared to USD34.6 billion in remittances. However, between 2012 and 2015, formal flows of remittances grew at a higher growth rate than both FDI and ODA. If we isolate the UK as a source of capital, between 2015 and 2016 remittance flows actually overtook the value of ODA and FDI combined. Cenfri’s most recent case study, Remittances in Uganda, tells us that remittances from the UK to Uganda amounted to USD275 million annually – more than double the amount of foreign aid from the UK.

Yet the cost to send money home remains high. The average cost of remittances to SSA is over 9% of the value of the transaction, compared to a global average of 7% (we dig deeper into this in our infographic on the cost of remitting money from the UK). We want to bring these costs down. Signatories to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals have pledged to reduce the average transaction costs of remittances to less than 3% of the amount transferred by 2030, with no remittance corridor costing more than 5%.

Our new research, Moving Money and Mindsets, shows an exciting new trend towards transferring money online. In 2016, 90% of remittances from the UK were being paid in cash at an agent. Fast forward two years, and we found that roughly half of focus group members now use online services – a significant and rapid switch in behaviour. Online remittances providers – like WorldRemit, Wave and TransferWise – not only provide transparency, security and convenience but are also significantly cheaper. It costs almost £16 to send £120 from the UK to Ethiopia in cash using an agent. The same amount costs only £6 to send online. Switching online clearly makes economic sense, so why stick to cash?

Some remittance markets are simply “stickier” than others. In countries with underdeveloped payment systems – like Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and the DRC – cash is still king. For example, in the DRC, less than 10% of people have a bank account, and mobile money is virtually non-existent. Other barriers to switching to online services include the registration process, perceived security issues and technological barriers for older people. The solutions range from relatively easy quick fixes like simplifying the registration process and marketing online services to customers to longer-term interventions designed to develop digital payment infrastructures in Africa. Our Risk, Remittances and Integrity (RRI) Programme is working at the individual, regional and global levels to remove these barriers to switching to online, and to bring the transfer costs down. Cash may still be king in some countries in Africa, but cash is costly and with digital alternatives on the rise, its reign may be nearing its end.

Read FSD Africa’s new research, “Moving Money and Mindsets” here.

Remittances as a source of income for women

Posted on by Kihingu Inc
Join us in celebrating International Women’s Day 2018!

Through our #PressforProgress campaign, we are proud to share information about our partnerships that are supporting women’s economic empowerment in a variety of ways.

Cenfri supports financial inclusion and financial-sector development through facilitating better regulation and market provision of financial services through research, advisory services and capacity-building programmes. FSD Africa and Cenfri have partnered on the Risk, Remittances and Integrity (RRI) programme which seeks to strengthen the integrity and risk management role of the financial sector and to facilitate remittance flows within and into the continent.

With respect to remittances, research conducted by Cenfri indicates that remittances are an important source of income for women in sub-Saharan Africa. They are used to meet monthly expenses, deal with unexpected shocks, and support family obligations (e.g. paying school fees).,

Cheaper international money transfer at our fingertips (or eyeballs)

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

If you’ve ever been to Africa (or even the United States), chances are that you’ve had your finger prints taken on a scanner on the desk at immigration. If you’ve tried to skip the queue at Heathrow, you’ve probably tried to use the facial recognition scanners, which always seem to have a shorter line. None of us try to travel across borders without our passports but we probably don’t give the biometric databases they connect to a second thought.

But one of the biggest challenges in sending and receiving money in developing countries stems from the need to be able to identify yourself at both ends of the transaction. The world over, millions of people do not possess any form of formal identification. But biometric technology could be an important part of the solution.

Banks, money transfer operators and other, all need to comply with so called ‘know-your-customer’ regulations. But the World Bankestimates that more than half the people in sub-Saharan Africa have no official identification record. That’s more than half a billion people. This issue is key to the broader agenda of financial exclusion since it prevents an estimated 375 million adults around the world from obtaining a bank account.

And it is not just banks but prepaid SIM cards in many countries also require proof of identity to register. So people without ID fall at the first hurdle of being eligible for mobile money wallets. Using biometric technology to identify people and assign them an identity for life, is key to improving financial inclusion; improving access to bank accounts and mobile wallets, and the uptake and use of digital financial services. It is literally the first step on the journey to formal financial inclusion.

Biometric-based ID cards can be used for multiple purposes apart from identifying people who are sending and receiving money across international borders. They can also enable the distribution of government services and social security benefits, and act as an electronic passport, voter identity document, and offer identification for healthcare and welfare service distribution. As a result, various governments, including Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Egypt, DRC and Malawi in Africa, are recognising the value of electronic IDs that utilise biometric technology. Investment has begun and the benefits being seen.

When it comes to moving money, the widespread lack of formalised ID in sub-Saharan Africa, combined with the largely cash-based economies makes the traceability of funds difficult and makes financial service providers nervous. Each party involved in processing a money transfer from the UK into Africa is accountable for ensuring that funds not are being used for money laundering or terrorist financing. And it is this perceived risk that is at the root of many UK banks’ decision to ‘de-risk’ money transfer operators. In fragile and conflict affected states, meeting know-your-customer regulations can be particularly difficult, especially where there are international sanctions in place and the risk is higher due to known or suspected terrorist activity.

A national electronic ID scheme, with biometrics used to authenticate and verify money transfer beneficiaries, could help to sustain formal remittance services to these markets. The difficulty of cheating or defrauding such a system should help reassure money transfer operators and in turn, international banks, that the recipient is who they claim to be. This is of crucial importance in economies like Somalia, Eritrea, Liberia, Libya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where international remittances make up between a fifth and half of the entire national GDP.

In a few countries, biometric electronic IDs are actually being directly linked to digital payment instruments (such as a bank account, credit or debit card, or mobile wallet). The Aadhaarscheme in India is undoubtedly the largest and most advanced. By April 2016 the Indian government had captured the fingerprints and iris scans of 1 billion people (93% of the population) which have been stored on an open platform so that they can be seeded to bank accounts and digital payment instruments. In Africa, the National Identity Management Commission in Nigeria has also started its electronic ID scheme, collecting ten fingerprints, a facial image and a digital signature which are stored in a central database. The new electronic ID cards offer MasterCard payment functionality to help drive financial inclusion.

It will, however, be some time before a biometric electronic ID system can become reality for everyone across Africa. Its roll out requires significant commitment and coordination, both human and financial, at a national level, and then there is still the thorny question as to who owns the data and how it will be used.

Biometric electronic identification technology will certainly have a key role to play in improving access to, and the security of, remittances into Africa. Biometric ID will also have a key role to play in moving remittances from cash to digital, which ultimately, is the only way to significantly reduce the cost of sending money.

 A new report on remittances from the UK to Africa was published in June 2017 by Financial Sector Deepening Africa. For more details see:https://fsdafrica.org/uktoafricaremittances/

10th consultative forum on “scaling up agricultural index insurance in Africa: building disaster resilience of smallholder farmer

Posted on by TIMOTHYRADIER

On 24 and 25 May 2017, insurance supervisory authorities, insurance practitioners, policymakers and development partners gathered in Kampala, Uganda, for the 10th Consultative Forum to discuss how to scale up agricultural index insurance for smallholder farmers. The event was co-organised by African Insurance Organisation, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the Access to Insurance Initiative (A2ii) and the Microinsurance Network (MIN); and live streaming of the event was provided by FSD Africa in partnership with Cenfri under their risk, remittance and integrity (RRI) programme.

Index insurance is recognised by policymakers as an important tool to build resilience among smallholder farmers, who dominate the agricultural landscape in Africa, as it overcomes some of the traditional microinsurance insurance challenges to reaching lower-income, rural individuals.

The forum focused on the limitations of index insurance as a stand-alone solution to agricultural related risks and the move to using it as part of a broader portfolio of risk management interventions to mitigate agricultural risks and improve food security.

The potential of index-based insurance is derived from its innovative business model, which relies on parameters set by existing weather or yield data to trigger claim pay-outs, rather than indemnity payments. If effectively implemented, this can reduce moral hazard, limit adverse selection and reduce the cost of distribution, as no risk assessment is required. However, to date, index insurance has not lived up to this promise and is struggling to achieve scale. Where some scale has been achieved, government or donors have largely been involved – by subsidising premiums, providing grants to cover operational costs or forming risk-sharing agreements to cap losses.

Speakers and participants at the Consultative Forum noted several constraints to the development and implementation of index insurance, which have hindered its progress. For instance, Mr Protazio Sande from the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda and Isaac Magina from Swiss Re noted the need for more available, reliable data that can be used to accurately predict risk.

The lack of appropriate data increases the likelihood that there will be a mismatch between the loss experienced by smallholder farmers from the event and the claim pay-out to the smallholder farmer triggered by the index (commonly known as “basis risk”).

If basis risk is too large, there is a lower likelihood that the smallholder farmers will receive a pay-out. Miguel Solana from the ILO’s Impact Insurance Facility has likened this to a lottery where farmers are betting on a risk they are worried they may experience. If basis risk is too large, then this creates more uncertainty and risk for farmers about whether they will be covered if an event occurs. This undermines their ability to manage the risk, in turn limiting the value of the insurance.

Further, these technical details are complicated and make an already difficult task of explaining insurance to farmers even more difficult. While these details are important for providers and regulators to understand, it is critical that we “don’t lose sight of the customer in technical details,” according to Joseph Owuor from the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Kenya, who also spoke at the event.

Index insurance also remains relatively expensive to provide, reaching as high as 12% to 20% of the insured value in some cases, averaging out at around 5% for most schemes. One of the main drivers of these costs is the upfront investment needed to:

  • Coordinate different stakeholders
  • Develop channels to effectively reach rural and low-income farmers
  • Build sufficient awareness and understanding among the target market to ensure take-up

At the same time, the lack of known market demand and the need to prove the value of the concept to farmers create uncertainty for claim pay-outs, leading to high claim ratios. These are critical obstacles to address.

Most schemes thus require donor or government support (in the form of upfront investment, subsidies or risk-sharing agreements) to get off the ground, but long-term government support and buy-in is often uncertain.

This requires many stakeholders from an array of fields to collaborate, with Peter Wrede from the World Bank likening it to an “orchestra” to make it work.

It also leaves some unanswered questions. For instance:

  • Does agricultural index insurance deliver value to clients? Under which circumstances does it do so?
  • Can certain segments of clients be more sustainably served through index insurance?

Whether these challenges are addressed, it is important to note that index insurance is only one of a range of tools that can support a broader agricultural risk management strategy. For instance, index insurance may only be viable for certain farming segments; and other segments will need other tools to help build their resilience. Further, such a strategy could also target other actors in the space with insurance, such as value chain providers like MFIs or agro-processors who extend credit to farmers.

Going forward, FSD Africa – in partnership with Cenfri – will conduct research to establish a knowledge base on how index insurance fits within a broader risk management strategy and convene the FSD network’s  Community of Practice to help market actors address challenges.

If you’re interested in learning more about the work under the FSD Africa and Cenfri partnership, please contact:

Mia Thom

Technical Director

Cenfri

miathom@cenfri.org

Twitter: @thommia

Website: cenfri.org

Juliet Munro

Director – Inclusive Finance

FSD Africa

juliet@fsdafrica.org

Twitter: @juliet_munro

Website: fsdafrica.org

FSD Africa, cenfri and the FSD network commit to collaborating on insurance market development

Posted on by TIMOTHYRADIER

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), insurance markets are yet to fully develop. Despite a population of over 1 billion people, there are only an estimated 60 million risks covered and total premiums for life and non-life insurance accounted for only 1.4% of the global insurance market in 2015. The contribution of the insurance sector to the economy in sub-Saharan Africa, in terms of premiums to GDP, is amongst the lowest in the world at 2.9%. If South Africa is excluded, it drops below 1%.

The lack of market development within the region undermines the contribution of insurance to a range of poverty alleviation and economic growth outcomes. As a risk transfer tool, insurance not only assists economic actors to protect the economic and social assets they accumulate, but also unlock new opportunities for economic activity. As a mechanism for intermediation, it directly supports economic growth, and indirectly aids the development of capital markets.

However, developing a well-functioning insurance market is not a quick and easy process. Several financial sector development programmes (FSDs) across SSA have been making substantive gains over the last decade. Nevertheless, gaps still exist in recognising the potential of insurance market development to contribute fully to poverty alleviation and economic growth.

FSD Africa, in partnership with Cenfri, is working with the network of FSDs across SSA to derive key learnings, as well as identify and suppo new opportunities and approaches to insurance market development. This new collaboration kick-offed at the first FSD Insurance Market Development Workshop which was held in Nairobi, Kenya on March 27th and 28th. In attendance was FSD Kenya, FSD Mozambique, FSD Tanzania, FSD Uganda, FSD Zambia and Access to Finance Rwanda.

There were two key objectives for the workshop. The first was to share strategies, approaches, challenges and successes in insurance market development. The second was to identify opportunities for cross-country learnings and future collaboration.

The workshop was structured around the insurance market development curve and the four stages of insurance market development it introduces. The discussions revealed that while insurance market development is a key focus for many FSDs, many of their approaches differ. The stages provide the FSDs with a tool to inform their approach and there was interest in how their interventions could be shaped per the stages of market development.

The workshop emphasised the need to learn from common successes and challenges. Challenges identified by the FSDs included:

  • Limited awareness and use of insurance;
  • Limited incentives for business to serve low-income people;
  • Questionable sustainability of certain agriculture and health products;
  • Lengthy regulatory change processes; and
  • Limited skills, capacity and data available on the benefit and impact of insurance for poverty alleviation and growth.

Successes highlighted focused on:

  • Creation of local working groups t promote and support inclusive insurance and microinsurance;
  • Innovations in product design such as index insurance and mobile microinsurance; and
  • Capacity Building for regulators and providers.

The FSDs also identified the importance of on-going and sustained engagement with regulators and the private sector. They noted that this engagement has led to increased provider and stakeholder interest; and support for inclusive insurance and microinsurance, as well as positive regulatory relationships and influence.

Going forward, FSD Africa, Cenfri and the FSD network have agreed to collaborate on insurance market development to address these challenges and amplify successes through a Community of Practice to be established for this purpose.

Getting ahead of the curve: how the regulatory discourse on M-insurance is changing

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

Nearly a year ago, we joined the A2ii in Abidjan to sit down with a roomful of regulators to discuss the challenges and imperatives CIMA faces in regulating mobile insurance at the CIMA-A2ii Workshop on Mobile Insurance Regulation. In the CIMA context, as with most countries in Africa, mobile network operators (MNOs) and the technical service providers (TSPs) that support them are emerging as key players in extending the reach of insurance. The discussions at the workshop focused on how insurance regulators can broaden their focus to include these MNOs and TSPs, as well as how to cooperate across different regulatory authorities.

A year on, these considerations remain as valid as ever, but we have come to realise that there is more at stake than m-insurance. Digital technology is changing the insurance landscape as we know it by paving the way for new players and business models with the potential to rapidly expand coverage. This is causing a re-think of how insurance is traditionally delivered. In addition, while m-insurance remains important, looking beyond m-insurance to the broader insurtech field is important to truly understand the opportunities technology provides to change the game in inclusive insurance and the associated risks.

Thus far, the insurtech debate has largely focused on developed country opportunities. But the tide is turning. My colleagues and I recently scanned the use of insurtech in the developing world to see what the potential is for addressing challenges in inclusive insurance. We found more than 90 initiatives in Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa that fit the bill. What we saw is that the “insurtech effect” is happening in two ways.

Firstly, digital technology is a tool to make insurance as we know it better: it is being used as a backbone to various elements of the insurance life cycle, in an effort to streamline processes, bring down costs and enable scale. Examples include new ways of data collection, communication and analytics (think big data, smart analytics, telematics, sensor-technology, artificial intelligence – the list goes on), as well as leveraging mobile and online platforms for front and back-end digital functionality (such as roboadvisors, online broker platforms, mobile phone or online claims lodging and processing, to name a few!).

It also allows for more tailored offerings: on-demand insurance initiatives are covering consumers for specific periods where they need that cover, for example for a bus ride, on vacation or when borrowing a friend’s car for one evening, while advances in sensor technology mean that insurers can adapt cover and pricing based on usage, for example allowing customers to only pay car insurance for the kilometres they actually drive every month.

In all of the above, digital technology, including the application of blockchain for smart contracting and claims, makes the process seamless.

Secondly, digital technology is a game changer. In many ways, it is changing the way insurers do business, design and roll out their products, and, importantly, who is involved in the value chain. Peer to peer platforms (P2P) are a much-discussed example of these next generation models. They are designed to match parties seeking insurance with those willing to cover these risks. The revolutionary element lies in the ability to cover risks that insurers usually shy away from due to the lack of data to adequately price the risks – all now enabled by digital technology. But these platforms are often positioned in regulatory grey areas: if all the platform does is match people to pool their own risks, does it then need a licensed insurer involved? And if advice is provided by a robot powered by an algorithm, who is ultimately accountable?

No wonder insurance supervisors are sitting up straight when you mention the word “tech”. As Luc Noubussi, microinsurance specialist at the CIMA secretariat, said at the 12th International Microinsurance Conference in Sri Lanka late last year: “Technology can have a major impact on microinsurance, but change is happening fast and regulators need to understand it”.

So, how do they remain on the front foot in light of all of this, what different functions, systems and players do they need to take into account and what are the risks arising? In short: how can they best facilitate innovation while protecting policyholders? Front of mind is how current regulatory and supervisory frameworks should accommodate new modalities, functions and roles – many of them outside the ambit of “traditional” insurance regulatory frameworks – and what cooperation is required between regulatory authorities to achieve that.

Two weeks from now we’ll again be sitting down with regulators from sub-Saharan Africa for the Mobile Insurance Regulationconference hosted in Douala, Cameroon, from 23 – 24 February 2017 by the A2ii, the IAIS and the 14 state West-African insurance regulator, CIMA, supported by UK aid, FSD Africa and the Munich Re Foundation. This conference will delve into the opportunities that mobile insurance present and the considerations for regulators and supervisors in designing and implementing regulations to accommodate it. The imperative to find an m-insurance regulatory solution remains, but it is clear that the horizon has broadened: at play is the way that insurance is done across the product life cycle, who the players are in the value chain and, at times, the very definition of insurance.

As we suggested in an earlier blog, this could be microinsurance’s Uber moment, but then regulators need to be on-board. We look forward to taking part in the discussions to see how supervisors plan to do just that.