Partner Organization: World Bank

Insurance for inclusive and sustainable growth – imperatives for action

Insurance has a strong role in combatting poverty and advancing development, in at least three ways:

Improving individual and household resilience
Insurance makes households more resilient in the face of financial shocks. Insurance also enables households to access services such as credit, health and education that may otherwise not be attainable to them.

Improving business resilience & productivity
Effective risk transfer is a fundamental part of corporate sustainability.
It also facilitates exports and imports, enables foreign investment and helps to ensure access – at better terms – to business financing.

Developing the demand and supply of capital
Insurance mobilizes capital through premium collection, its role in enabling business development and its linkages with the pensions market.It also pools capital into larger pots of funds that are more efficient to manage and invest.

Recognising the role that insurance can play in supporting sustainable development and growth, the UK’s DFID partnered with the World Bank, FSD Africa and Cenfri to conduct a series of diagnostics that explore how these three roles manifest in four countries in SSA: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda.

This paper synthesises cross-cutting themes from the study countries and beyond and draws conclusions and recommendations on how to further develop insurance markets.

Giving credit to Africa’s financial markets and why we need to step up refo

If you open the World Bank’s Global Financial Development Database and compare the data on private credit against total population, it is instructive to note the markedly different growth rates. In the developing economies of sub-Saharan Africa, credit extension has grown fairly impressively in the last 10 years albeit off a low base—from 10 percent to 18 percent. However, the total population of the region has grown by nearly a third, and now stands at 1 billion people. These disparate numbers suggest that credit is not growing fast enough to build the infrastructure and create the jobs needed to support this rapidly growing, young population.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREDIT

For the majority who live on the continent, especially those living in cities contending with rising food and fuel prices, their ability to build or acquire assets is extremely constrained. For most people, access to credit is not about investing in buildings or businesses.  It’s about managing daily challenges.  In shor is a necessity, the means by which people can “stay in the game.”

For sure, easier access to credit—through, for example, credit and store cards as well as mobile-based loan product innovations like M-Shwari, Branch, and Tala—helps with consumption smoothing.  But in Africa today there is not much that credit markets can offer the economically active “near poor” to help them build capital in a meaningful sense.

In developed economies, housing finance has allowed countless millions over the decades to build household wealth.  Yet in Africa, mortgage markets are extremely thin. In Uganda, there are an estimated 5,000 mortgages for a population of 41 million while in Tanzania, there are only 3,500 mortgages in a country with a population of 55 million.  Market dysfunction like this means that people without land or buildings do not benefit from the asset-price inflation that creates unearned wealth for those who already have capital, and so we see societies becoming dangerously divided and unequal.

Credit extension in Africa lags behind other regions of tha dramatic extent.  While the ratio of credit to GDP is only 18 percent in sub-Saharan Africa, comparable figures in South Asia and Latin America are 37 percent and 47 percent, respectively.  Across sub-Saharan Africa, central bankers and policymakers now realise that much bigger and better-functioning credit markets should be a priority outcome for their financial market reform strategies.

In the financial inclusion world, credit raises concerns because of the risks of over-indebtedness. Indeed, this is a worry in contexts such as in Kenya, where there has been a proliferation of different apps for online credit, and evidence is emerging that online credit is being used for unproductive activities, like online gambling. But we should not let this get in the way of the reality that Africa needs a lot more credit if economic development is keep pace with population growth.

Despite the importance of credit markets, we have not yet, collectively, made them a serious enough object of inquiry—and the consequs of not doing so are profound.

CREDIT MARKET REFORM

Credit market reform poses a challenge because credit straddles the entire financial market—from microcredit at the one end, through to capital markets, including project and bond finance, at the other. Credit also involves banks as well as non-bank financial institutions, including now fintechs and even telcos—so whose job is it to regulate credit markets? Central banks only? Or market conduct authorities with mandates that go beyond consumer credit into areas such as investor protection? Or dedicated credit regulators, such as South Africa’s National Credit Regulator? It is not always clear who should be responsible and so reform processes often lack leadership.

We also see credit market reform being promulgated in a fragmentary way.  For example, strengthening credit market infrastructure tends to be the preserve of those interested in the development of small and medium enterprise finance, while consumer protection tend looked at through a responsible finance lens—when in fact the different elements interrelate.  Credit market reform strategies should be much more joined up than they are.

There is currently no single African “observatory” monitoring the evolution of credit markets in Africa and no single Africa-based resource dedicated to combating credit market dysfunction. The past decade has seen numerous policy mis-steps in relation to credit markets, well-intended initiatives that have not been grounded in good evidence.  Better information exchange might have prevented these mistakes.  In Africa we lack effective mechanisms for knowledge sharing and peer learning around credit, a marked contrast to the plentiful knowledge sharing around related areas such as bank supervision and digital financial services.

There is also a vital need for African credit markets to take advantage of the increasing availability of concessional capital as donor organisations shift their funding towards returnable capital and awaant finance. Blended finance capital structures, with their ability to de-risk and pump prime lending, should encourage banks and other lenders to explore new markets in a sustainable way, in which risks are appropriately shared.

In addition, there is a fundamental need for much better data on credit markets.  Without much more granular data by sector or by gender, it is going to be difficult for policymakers to implement effective strategies aimed at driving investment into essential industry sectors such as agriculture, housing, and infrastructure.

The Bank of Zambia, with support from FSD Africa, has been piloting an innovative scheme to improve data on credit markets. Under the scheme, all regulated financial institutions submit supplemental quarterly returns on their loan books to the central bank in return for which they get to see, in aggregate and by sector, trend data on the evolution of credit markets in Zambia.  In this way, they can benchmark their own performance against the performance of tentire industry. We think this will spur competition and innovation by private credit providers. The Zambian authorities, meanwhile, now have the information with which they can make informed choices about where to take credit markets in Zambia, and how to manage risks but also, crucially, how to foster innovation and where to target support.

Note: The Africa Growth Initiative at The Brookings Institute first posted this blog on 1 August 2018. This is a reproduction from the original with AGI’s permission. 

Note: This blog reflects the views of the author only and does not reflect the views of the Africa Growth Initiative.<

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

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