The world at your fingertips
Mobile money and financial inclusion of returnees in Côte D’Ivoire
In 2018, UNHCR Côte d’Ivoire was selected as one of the recipients of the Community Connectivity Fund which supports Operations to test new ideas that can advance the Connectivity for Refugees agenda. UNHCR’s Sub Office of Guiglo, in Western Côte d’Ivoire, proposed the use of mobile money as an alternative to the traditional approach of providing cash grants to Ivorian returnees opting for voluntary repatriation. The traditional approach is for UNHCR’s partners to remit the cash as a one-time payment given in an envelope to the head of household at the transit center. We spoke about the project with Alpha Amadou Diallo, Admin/Finance Officer of the office in Côte d’Ivoire since April 2015, and one of our Innovation Fellows who supported the project from its inception phase. Alpha introduces himself as the Operation’s “tour de controle” (control tower): his job is to coordinate and assist colleagues in the field to ensure that they have the necessary support to ensure everything runs smoothly. Obviously, nothing runs smoothly all the time, not in Abidjan or Guiglo nor anywhere. But, as Alpha points out, seen from a different angle, and equipped with the right tools, problems are nothing less than the beginning of a new story, one where we strive to bring positive change and improve the way we work and support communities.
Last year, UNHCR Côte d’Ivoire applied to the Community Connectivity Fund and received funding to experiment with mobile financial assistance for returnees. Could you tell us how the idea came to being and what shaped it?
In 2011, when the Ivorian crisis ended and conditions in the country became conducive for repatriation, a lot of refugees started returning to Côte d’Ivoire. For UNHCR it soon became crucial to understand needs and the different ways to deliver humanitarian assistance to returnees: was it through the provision of Non-Food Items (such as utensils, buckets, etc), or cash grants, or a combination of these? Were there alternatives to these modalities? What were the risks and opportunities? To me, this seemed to be a good opportunity to apply what I learned during UNHCR’s Innovation Fellowship, and so I volunteered to carry out an evaluation and compare the different approaches to assistance and their impact on returnees.
Not surprisingly, what we learned through focus-group discussions was that cash intervention was the preferred option because it provided returnees with the choice to self-determine how to make use of this assistance. However, returnees also discussed their security concerns and the fact that cash could make them more vulnerable during and after repatriation. If the evaluation meant that UNHCR’s cash assistant per se was relevant, it also suggested that the distribution modality was far from being perfect as it could put returnees at risk of being robbed or being taken advantage of.
It wasn’t long before the idea of mobile money came about: was that an alternative to make cash assistance safer and more efficient? The evaluation alone was instrumental in laying the foundations of the project but we still needed a way forward, a way to energize our efforts and test our idea. The Community Connectivity Fund just came at the right time.
From the idea, to its design, and realization: what was crucial in this process?
It’s really always about listening. There is evidence, here is what we learn by speaking to returnees. When the people we are supposed to serve tell us:“We are happy about the way you’re doing things, thank you very much. But there is also another way that could be better…”. Communities tell us about the flaws and issues in the way we deliver our assistance from their perspective, in this case in the way we deliver cash. So I encourage us to look at the results of our focus group discussions, to listen to what refugees are saying because at the end of the day, we are not working for ourselves, but we are working for them, we should take what they say and adjust our approaches, because we care.
That’s what I mean by walking the talk: participation, inclusion. This is not about checking a box because you have done a participatory survey, and saying “we talked to them, we know their needs, so basta”. If what different groups of refugees give us as feedback does not drive us to adjust the way we design and implement our programs, where is our accountability? How are we respecting our principles and ensuring we are doing no harm? Doing a survey doesn’t stop there. We need to include communities when we do planning, show them the programs and approaches we are considering, consult them not just on what their needs are but how we could best address them, factoring in the capacities they already have, individually and collectively. When you are doing things in one way, we should keep in mind that the same could be also be done in a hundred different ways. So ask yourself why: is it for the communities? And if you don’t know, ask them, ask for feedback, and truly listen to what they have to say.
One of the first things that the project did was to bring humanitarian agencies, Mobile Network Operators, and representatives from the government in Côte d’Ivoire but also in countries of asylum such as Ghana, Guinea, and Liberia together around a table and discuss what mobile money assistance to returnees could look like in this environment. What was the thinking behind it?
Collaboration is what creates value. No one can create value on their own. And creating value is essential, and we can do this only when we include other actors and communities in the conversation. This is very important and the reason why today the discourse in UNHCR is shifting towards multi-stakeholder approaches. This project would not have happened without this type of collaboration and approach, without including all the actors, internally first as a collaboration between the field and non-field offices, between government partners, mobile money companies, telecommunication regulatory bodies, and other agencies as partners. But first and foremost, we talked to refugees. We went to the neighboring countries where refugees are, and spoke with them about the mobile money possibilities. They expressed enthusiasm but raised the issue of documentation as the major hurdle. We knew from the very beginning that collaboration was what would help us create value for returnees.
For things to move we needed to have buy-in from the local telecommunications companies and they needed to be involved; they needed to understand that this is a good opportunity for them, either within their corporate social responsibility window or to the profitability window or both. We discussed with them as partners, not vendors or suppliers. A lot of the focus is on problems, and we tend to forget that challenges can also mean new opportunities. That’s where we come in and try to collaboratively find ways to address the problem in a way that brings results, benefits and ultimately added value. In this case, the result or value created is that returnees have a better likelihood to be reintegrated faster, financially and socially, when they come back to Côte d’Ivoire.
Let’s talk about the role of mobile for reintegration and for inclusion in a context of displacement.
There are so many opportunities that come with owning a smartphone in today’s world. Nowadays you can open a bank account and have a credit card because banks have understood the importance of integrating financial services with mobile technology. This opens up countless opportunities for the displaced, that’s one of the ways to achieve inclusion. Think of a returnee being able to become a mobile money agent, work, do transactions: soon all this is going to be possible with only a smartphone and a SIM card. We can go from brick and mortar services which are most time inaccessible to a lot of rural communities to mobile, especially in the African context where public services and infrastructure are underdeveloped. Refugees can now have the world at their fingertips, open a bank account with a smartphone, access banking, government services, and information. In the 21st century you can’t live without a mobile phone, or let’s say you can, but it will be very difficult and less than ideal. For me this is now a minimum, it’s not a privilege, it’s not a courtesy we’re giving to displaced populations. This is vital for re-integration. This is a minimum. Now, a returnee is a former refugee and reintegration is the government and our main concern as duty-bearers. If we are not doing something for returnees then what’s the use of a person coming back? Returnees need to come back and find good conditions, not more or less than what the local populations is having. These are minimum conditions for repatriation. And for me having access to a bank account, having access to mobile money as an accelerator for financial inclusion, this is a minimum. If not why would someone come back or stay upon return if he or she is facing better conditions in exile? This is part of the reason why (unsustainable return) some returnees embark on difficult journeys to a better existence elsewhere.
What would you see as the main challenges lying on our pathway as we try to realize an inclusive connectivity agenda?
I would say that the biggest challenge is the way we think about and do “collaboration”, and secondly is the issue of identification. If you look at the government tripartite agreements between Côte d’Ivoire and asylum countries that serve as the legal framework for UNHCR’s support to the government in regards to facilitation (which has now become promotion), en principe the Voluntary Repatriation Form (VRF) could be used as a temporary identification at least during the first six months after repatriation and before any other type of identification can be provided. But what happened here because of the security situation and terrorism threats, since we had a terrorist attack two years ago, the government has decided to override that and has instructed the mobile communication authorities to not grant SIM cards to those who cannot provide a biometric ID, which the VRF isn’t. That’s where our efforts are going now, advocating with these bodies for change to make the VRF biometric so that it does not become useless. We understand the political environment and security concerns but this type of trend worldwide can mean that access to important services for a population that is already vulnerable is restrained. I think this is also because the reality of returnees is less spoken about, not well known and understood. So our innovation project is facing many constraints. This project also allowed us to tackle a lot of issues because no ID means no mobile money. So it’s not just an idea because thanks to that we drew attention to a gap and initiated a discussion about providing an ID to displaced persons in Côte d’Ivoire.
Innovating connectivity is a necessary and demanding task, one where mindset and motivations can make all the difference. What is your driving force, and what keeps you going?
When I decided to join UNHCR, I did not only want to become a humanitarian agent, but also a change agent. I don’t see myself as an Admin and Finance Officer and I don’t want to be put in a box, the admin or finance box. I like to be involved in everything because I believe that too much specialization in humanitarian sector is creating silos which are restraining our humanitarian spirit. I do this job because I believe in helping others. As a matter of fact, I don’t see it as a job, but a calling. It’s been like this for a long time, since I was a kid. My job doesn’t make sense if I’m here for other reasons. I left the for-profit banking sector to come to the not-for-profit, development and now humanitarian sector. So I take every opportunity I have (to make things change). They say “Alpha, you’re talking again”, they say “Alpha, you are a dreamer”. No problem, I’m still pushing, with positive energy, fighting within the system to improve the system. I believe everything is possible when you have that positive energy and try to contaminate others with it. That’s it. I’m not taking no for an answer. I don’t want this operation to fail, and failure for me is if we don’t do things well as per the judgement of the people we serve. Failure is not just you, it’s not an individual, it’s collective as a team. And successes will be successes of the people we serve, their communities, governments, municipalities, of the whole operation. So this is me: I always think that there is a solution, I always think that it can work.
The project in Côte d’Ivoire is ongoing and the initial results showed promise: however due to the issue of documentation, returnees are yet to test the mobile money transfer modality. The project has been highlighted in a number of local media outlets, including abidjan.net, Ivoirematin, linfodrome, and africactu.
