Bridge to Financial Inclusion in Client Outcomes Study Endline Report September 2017

April 2020 - UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Project: Bridge to Financial Inclusion in Burkina Faso

Funder: Mastercard Foundation

Technical Service Provider: Grameen Foundation

Authors and Researchers: Grameen Foundation - Megan Gash

Co-authors: UNCDF - Pamela Eser - Hermann Messan

Review Committee: UNCDF - Kirsten Weiss - Pamela Eser - Hermann Messan - Ivana Damjanov Mastercard Foundation - Ruth Dueck-Mbeba - Amos Odero

April 2020. Copyright © UN Capital Development Fund. All rights reserved. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNCDF, or their Member States. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the map(s) and graph(s) contained in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations or UNCDF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

2 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the staff members of SOFIPE and RCPB for their collaboration in the Bridge to Financial Inclusion project as well as in the assessment activities that are documented in this report. Many thanks also go to our colleagues Christian Loupeda, and Sybil Chidiac for their leadership and support of the research activities. Many thanks go to the UNCDF Microlead team for their support of this project and the review of this report. Table of Contents

• Executive Summary

4 Introduction 6 Methodology

8 Results & Analysis 17 Conclusion

Acronyms

BFI Bridge to Financial Inclusion SOFIPE Société de Financement pour la Petite Entreprise (now FSP Financial Service Provider Pan African BF) NGO Non-Governmental Organization SG Savings Group RCPB Réseau des Caisses Populaires du Burkina Executive Summary

Can financial service providers (FSPs) effectively link savings groups of poor rural women to formal savings (SG) accounts via a mobile phone platform? Can this be done while protecting and even enhancing the value of maintaining membership in a savings group? This paper presents the experience of two Freedom from Hunger’s FSP partners in Burkina Faso: Le Réseau des Caisses Populaires du Burkina (RCPB) and La Société pour le Financement de la Petite Entreprise (SOFIPE). Both FSPs integrated the formation of savings groups as part of their rural outreach strategy and analyzed their members’ experiences during the project with regard to participation, financial capability and Client Protection principles.

A sample of group members was randomly selected by each FSP; the sample was surveyed at the beginning of the project (baseline) and towards the end of the project (endline) and the changes were analyzed.

The study reveals that:

• The average length of time in a savings group increased from 1.5 months to 17.4 months showing more stability in groups membership; • The percentage of food-insecure members increased slightly in RCPB’s groups, but decreased significantly in SOFIPE’s (from 51% to 37%). This could be due to the difference in the time of the year that the surveys were conducted and in the locations of FSPs; • Based on the Progress out of Index (PPI), the rates of those living below the national poverty line are lower for RCPB and SOFIPE’s respondents than the national average by about 15-20 percent; • For both organizations, the savings groups financial linkage did not involve any sort of pressure on the savings group members to take out loans; also group cohesion was maintained during the financial linkage process. While the two FSPs show an increase in the amount of weekly savings, SOFIPE’s groups show a slower increase than RCPB’s; • The majority of the savings group members have access to a phone and demonstrated confidence in using them. Very few, however, had individual Mobile Money accounts. SOFIPE members showed increased access to loans at formal financial institutions.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 3 Introduction

In a realm where non-governmental organizations (NGOs) typically manage savings group formation and linkages, actors in the financial inclusion sector have asked the question: can financial service providers (FSPs) effectively form savings groups and link them to formal savings accounts via a mobile phone platform? Both the community of NGOs that work with savings groups want to know the answer to this question as well as FSPs. Their individual concerns are naturally different, however: NGOs want to know if the FSPs will form and manage groups to the same quality standards of the NGOs, and FSPs want to know if it is an effective and profitable model to reach clients further down market. The UNCDF MicroLead Expansion initiative has tasked Freedom from Hunger (now Grameen Foundation) with answering both of these questions through the Bridge to Financial Inclusion in Burkina Faso (BFI) project.

4 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series The BFI project supports financial institutions that are poised to increase financial access to underserved rural populations, particularly women, through the adoption of a savings-led business model that leverages technology to increase financial inclusion. To accomplish this, the two Burkinabé financial service providers (FSPs), le Réseau des Caisses Populaires du Burkina Faso (RCPB), and La Société de Financement de la Petite Entreprise (SOFIPE), are developing a large network of self- managed savings and lending groups, and providing high-quality financial education to group members, link them to specialized MFI savings accounts through mobile technology and later introduce them to other financial products. SOFIPE is using the Orange Money platform for the savings group (SG) mobile linkage whereas RCPB is using their in-house application named Intercaisses. RCPB and SOFIPE adopted and operationalized SMART Campaign client protection principles and integrated them through the SG formation and digital finance delivery mechanism. Overall coordination and technical support throughout this endeavor was provided to RCPB and SOFIPE by Freedom from Hunger, while Ecobank, as co-lead of the project, ensured the in-country coordination of the project and facilitation of the relationship with Airtel. By the end of the second quarter of 2017, nearly 71,000 women in Burkina Faso have been exposed to financial education using a technology-enabled delivery approach; about 24,000 of them have access to group-based savings services offered by the two institutions and have learned how to access and interface more effectively with the formal financial system.

RCPB and SOFIPE began forming SGs using the methodology Saving for Change1 in mid-2015. Groups are being created in the northern provinces of Yatenga, Zondoma, and Passoré, by RCPB, and in the Sissli and Houet provinces (Bama Department), by SOFIPE (work began in Bama in October 2015). By June 2017, RCPB’s 5 facilitators had identified and trained 78 community agents (CAs), who formed 1,165 groups with 25,010 members; SOFIPE’s 5 facilitators had trained 59 CAs, who formed 1,267 groups with 31,725 members. Although both institutions have similar numbers of facilitators, SOFIPE identified and trained fewer CAs but was able to form a higher number of groups. In addition, RCPB’s groups are in average smaller with 21 members per group, as compared to SOFIPE’s with 25 members per group resulting in a total number of women reached by SOFIPE significantly higher RCPB.

Table i Project Output Indicators as of June 30, 2017.

Supervisors Facilitators CAs Groups Members Avg. No. of Members per Group

RCBP 1 5 78 1,165 25,010 21

SOFIPE 1 5 59 1267 31,725 25 1 Saving for Change was jointly developed by Freedom from Hunger, Oxfam America and Strømme Foundation. It is a methodology for self- managed savings and lending groups integrated with simple trainings in , business and money management. Saving for Change brings basic financial services to sustainable, cohesive groups that tackle social issues facing their members and their communities.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 5 Client Outcomes Study

As a way to learn more about the women served through the project innovations, the Learning Agenda for the project includes a client outcomes study. Note that in the case of the project, the female SG members are the clients. Client is a term more commonly used in the FSP market, whereas member is the more commonly used term in the NGO community. This paper will use the two terms interchangeably. The study aims to collect information on the women according to the following four topics:

1) levels of financial capability regarding SG participation, the use of the savings accounts as accessed via the mobile money accounts, and exposure to new financial products offered by the FSPs; 2) knowledge of client protection principles at the following levels: a. at the level of the CA, in how they interface with the savings groups during the formation and support; b. at the level of the savings groups, regarding internal dynamics within the groups; and c. at the level of the agents, in how they interface with savings groups during the linkage; and 3) levels of satisfaction with the program.

The following Client Outcomes Study Endline Report presents results of indicators collected during the endline, as compared to the same outcomes taken at the baseline. The comparison highlights changes as well as key characteristics of savings group members, highlighting key issues for discussion.

6 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Methodology

The client outcomes study includes one research activity, performed at strategic points during the lifetime of the project. It is a quantitative survey of approximately 55 questions, divided into 5 sections: 1) Respondent Information; 2) Savings Group Indicators; 3) Savings Account Linkage Indicators; 4) Household Indicators (including poverty level indicators); and 5) Food Security.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 7 The survey is implemented using Freedom from Hunger’s Social Indicator System (SIS), which includes a monitoring system managed by FSP staff that emphasizes the collection of socially-oriented indicators of savings group members (in contrast to group financial indicators typically collected by the MIS), while building the capacity of FSP staff in monitoring and evaluation. Although the SIS typically consists of approximately 30 indicators, additional indicators were added to cover more topics of interest. For the BFI project, baseline data was collected in November 2015, before the start of the financial education. The end line occurred in April 2017, at the end of the project.

In line with SIS methodology, Freedom from Hunger staff trained FSP facilitators at both RCPB and SOFIPE in September 2015 to collect, enter and conduct simple analysis of the data. As a way to ease the burden of cost, time and effort of data collection on FSP staff, the client outcomes study follows the SIS sampling strategy: all facilitators interview one randomly selected SG member from the first group formed by each CA that they manage at the time of the baseline. Facilitators use “drawing the short stick” or similar method at a group meeting to publicly and randomly select a participant for surveying. Women are not required to participate, and data is kept confidential. The five facilitators at SOFIPE interviewed 51 members for the baseline, and RCPB facilitators interviewed 40 (it was deemed too much of a burden for 5 facilitators to interview 15 members each across 78 groups, thus the total was reduced randomly). For the endline, RCPB interviewed 30 of the 40 members in the baseline, and SOFIPE interviewed 45 of the 51 in the baseline. It is recognized that this method is not a rigorous or scientific representation of all the groups. The small sample is seen as only providing an illustrative example of behaviors of early groups, and that strong conclusions should not be made from this data. Freedom from Hunger staff performed a closer analysis of the data for this report.

8 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Results & Analysis

The following section summarizes and interprets the outcomes from the endline survey. The results are organized by the main topics of the survey, with particularly interesting outcomes highlighted. As results are presented, their interpretation is discussed in the text. At the end of this section, issues of particular interest or concerned are suggested for further discussion.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 9 Demographics

The key demographic outcomes changed slightly from baseline to endline. Table 2 summarizes the key findings. The average age increased slightly for both groups, as expected with the 17 month time gap between the baseline to endline. Ages of members ranged from approximately 19 to 69 years old. The majority are married, with some widowed or divorced (or separated), and none were single. The average length of time in a savings group increased from 1.5 months to 17.4 months, and all groups had distributed funds one time. For RCPB clients, the percentage of women living in a rural area increased slightly from 55% to 67%, and those married increased from 83 to 90%. The percentage who are food insecure for RCPB clients increased slightly; but decreased significantly for the SOFIPE clients from 51% to 37%. Due to the small sample size, it is likely that the change for RCPB clients is not significant, but the change for SOFIPE clients is likely significant. One reason for the difference in the SOFIPE outcomes could be due to the time of the year. The baseline occurred in November, which is typically post- harvest but could still capture the high rates of food insecurity from the July-October lean season if harvest is delayed. The endline was in April and May, when the weather is particularly hot and dry but grain storage is still high and people could still be eating well. The difference between RCPB clients and SOFIPE clients could be due to their location; SOFIPE’s operation area could be better off in terms of food availability and access than that of RCPB’s clients.

Table ii Key Demographics

Indicator RCPB SOFIPE Baseline Endline Baseline Endline

Percentage living in a 55% 67% 92% 92% rural community

Percentage living in a 45% peri-urban 33% peri-urban 8% urban 8% urban peri-urban or urban community Average age 37 years 38.6 years 35 years 37 years Percentage who are 83% 90% 94% 95% married

Average time in a 1.5 months 17.4 months 2.4 months 21.8 months savings group (1 year, 5.4 months) (1 year, 9.8 months)

Times distributed 0 1 0 1 funds

Percentage who are 92% 97% 51% 37% food insecure

10 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Poverty Level Outcomes

Using the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI),2 Figure 1 shows that 28 percent of RCPB’s members and 26% of SOFIPE’s members surveyed at the endline are estimated to live below the national poverty line (NPL), estimated at FCFA 226 per person per day—based on year 2003 measures. Forty-two percent of RCPB’s members and 38 percent of SOFIPE’s members surveyed live below the $1.25/day international poverty line (estimated at FCFA 288), and 78% of RCPB’s and 73% of SOFIPE’s members live below the $2.50/day 2005 PPP line (estimated at FCFA 576). The estimates of those living below the $1.25/day and $2.50/day lines are similar to national averages of $1.90 and $3.10, respectively,3 but the rates of those living below the national poverty line are lower for RCPB and SOFIPE’s respondents than the national average by about 15-20 percent. Table 3 shows the baseline poverty level outcomes compared to the endline; there are very few changes, and none of them are statistically significant.

Figure i Endline Poverty Status and Relevant National Benchmarks

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

RCPB SOFIPE National

Percentage living Percentage living Percentage living below national below the $1.25/day below the $2.50/day poverty line or $1.90/day line or $3.10/day line

2 This survey was developed using a national poverty survey conducted in 2003. Therefore, the benchmarks provided here are provided by Mark Schreiner in the documentation for the Burkina Faso PPI survey and may not relate to the latest poverty measurements found by the or others. Please see the PPI documentation at http:// progressoutofpoverty.org/country/burkina-faso 3 National averages are provided from the most up-to-date poverty line data available. International benchmarks have changed from $1.25/day to $1.90, and from $2.50 to $3.10, since the PPI data was published. Data accessed on May 18, 2017 at http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/ BFA.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 11 Table iii Poverty Status Outcomes

Indicator RCPB SOFIPE Baseline Endline Baseline Endline

Percentage living 23% 28% 25% 26% below national poverty line Percentage living 37% 42% 37% 38% below the $1.25/day or $1.90/day line

Percentage living 76% 78% 71% 73% below the $2.50/day or $3.10/day line

Savings Group Indicators

The indicators in the Savings Group section had a strong emphasis on client protection principles. Table 4 summarizes the results. In regards to whether the women thought the group followed principles and procedures, all members agreed by the endline. Regarding if the community agent takes questions and complaints seriously, there was a slight increase in the number who agreed. When asked if the group fairly assessed every request for a loan and the capacity of someone to repay it, most members surveyed answered yes.

There was an improvement in the outcome for RCPB members for the indicator, “In the case when someone cannot repay a loan, do you believe there is fair and respectful treatment of that person by the other group members?” At the baseline, 39% said yes, and by the endline, 50% of the respondents said yes. When asked about the outcomes, RCPB staff remarked that although there was an improvement, the (only) 50% level reflects that some women must not have understood the question because they have not yet recorded a case of default for repayment at the level of the savings group. They said that they will focus on communicating and raising awareness amongst savings group members on the issue of respectful and fair treatment of clients. For SOFIPE members, 100% said yes by the endline.

When asked if anyone is unfairly excluded from joining this group, 93% of RCPB members said no, no one is unfairly excluded, at both the baseline and endline. For SOFIPE members, there was an increase from 86% answering no in the baseline to 98% in the endline.

The last question in this section is regarding weekly individual savings amounts (including the saving group contribution). At baseline, the majority of RCPB members (76%) reported saving less than FCFA 500 per week, with the remainder, 24%, saving between FCFA 500-1000. No one reported saving more than FCFA 1000.4 These proportions shifted over time, with the end line results showing that more members were saving larger amounts of money. About half of them started saving between FCFA 500 and 1000. It is difficult to tell what motivated the shift; it could be the natural progression in saving more after distribution when groups have more confidence in the savings group methodology, it could be a response to the financial education messages, or it could be due to more confidence in the security of their savings after the linkage with the savings account. For SOFIPE, the story is a bit different with fewer saving FCFA1000 or more, and more members saving between 4 As of June 1, 2017, US$1 = FCFA 586, per http:// FCFA 500 and 1000. Again, it is difficult to know why there is a shift here, but one explanation could be that www.oanda.com/currency/ members are less able to save at this time of the year (May for the endline vs. November for the baseline). converter/

12 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 13 Table iv Savings Group Indicators

Indicator RCPB SOFIPE n= Baseline n= Endline n= Baseline n= Endline

Do the members in your 30 100% 30 100% 51 78% 45 100% savings group always follow the principles and procedures as established by the group? (yes)

If you have a question or 30 97% 30 100% 51 100% 45 100% a complaint about your savings group, does your community agent take the issue seriously and help you get it resolved? (yes)

Does your group fairly 27 100% 29 97% 40 98% 45 100% assess every request for a loan and the capacity of someone to repay it? (yes)

In the case when some- 28 39% 30 50% 40 63% 45 100% one cannot repay a loan, do you believe there is fair and respectful treatment of that person by the other group members? (yes)

Do you think anyone is 30 93% 30 93% 51 86% 45 98 unfairly excluded from joining this group? (no; no one is unfairly excluded)

How much are you able to save individually per week including your savings with the savings group?excluded)

Less than FCFA 500 29 76% 19 47% 51 55% 44 55%

Between FCFA 500 and 29 24% 19 53% 51 22% 44 41% 1000

More than FCFA 1000 29 0% 19 0% 51 24% 44 5%

14 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series The Savings Account Linkage Indicators

The majority or RCPB (77%) and SOFIPE (90%) members had access to a cell phone before joining the savings group. It is unclear why there was a decline in the end line results for RCPB, dropping to 50%

The first indicators in this section look at questions regarding mobile money and usage of financial institution products. The majority or RCPB (77%) and SOFIPE (90%) members had access to a cell phone before joining the savings group. It is unclear why there was a decline in the end line results for RCPB, dropping to 50%. About half of the women feel confident operating a cell phone, 47% from RCPB and 62% from SOFIPE at the endline, but neither institution showed a very strong increase over time. Very few have an individual mobile money account for personal use (for herself or her family) at either institution. These outcomes paint a typical picture of the gender gap in digital financial services; many of the women have access to phones, some have confidence in using them, and very few of them have individual mobile money accounts.

Regarding if members have a loan or account at a formal financial institution (for personal use for herself or her family), 20% answered yes at RCPB, with no change over time. However, there was a large increase at SOFIPE from 10% to 52% and the endline. By the endline, almost all of the respondents had received financial education about linking the group with a savings account, with 57% of RCPB members opening a savings account and 82% of SOFIPE’s members.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 15 Table v Linking with a Savings Account Indicators, including Baseline

Indicator RCPB SOFIPE n= Baseline n= Endline n= Baseline n= Endline

Did you have access 30 77% 30 50% 51 90% 44 82% to a cell phone before you joined this savings group? (yes)

Do you feel confident 30 53% 30 47% 51 55% 45 62% operating a cell phone? (yes)

Do you have an indi- 30 17% 30 23% 51 4% 45 4% vidual mobile money account for personal use (for you or your family)? (yes)

Do you currently have a 30 20% 30 20% 51 10% 44 52% loan or an account with a formal financial institution for personal use or for you or your family, such as RCPB village banks? (yes)

Has your group received 30 20% 30 93% 51 0% 45 66% any financial education about linking your group with a mobile money account and a savings account? (yes)

Has your savings group 29 0% 30 57% 51 0% 45 82% opened a savings account? (yes)

16 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Only endline data exists for the remainder of the indicators, since these questions were not relevant at the baseline. The number of respondents varied per question, bringing the sample size to small levels and further challenging the ability to make conclusions. For RCPB, almost half (41%) of the members knew that groups are required to pay fees to withdraw money, and that the savings account was interest-bearing. For SOFIPE, all members knew this information. Since these topics were covered in the financial education, these percentages should be higher for RCPB. However, if only 57% of RCPB groups had linked, and assuming that people learn more by doing (rather that only hearing information and not having to act on it), then it would be logical for around the same amount, or a little less, to know these details. Regarding amount of funds in the account, out of the 15 that answered at RCPB, 47% of members reported that they put more than half of the group funds in the account and only 16% of SOFIPE members did this. When asked about the low percentage, SOFIPE staff said they do not put pressure on savings groups to make deposits, but encourage them to give loans for income-generating activities. Deposits are made when the accumulated savings amounts become large and the treasurer feels insecure about the amount of money (an thus wants more security for the funds by depositing them). One hundred percent of answering members claimed their group felt prepared when opening the account, and are comfortable with the way that the group fund has been managed since opening the account.

Seventy-three percent of respondents at SOFIPE thought their group has changed in a positive way since it opened a savings account, and also think their savings are ‘very safe’ in the savings account. They do not make deposits frequently, however with 69 percent making deposits only once a month or less. Ninety-two percent think their Orange agent is ‘very available’ to make deposits or withdrawals, and 100 percent say their Orange agent helps teach them how to navigate the phone to make transactions RCPB and SOFIPE financial products on their account. Data for these indicators were not available from enough RCPB members to make conclusions. 31% FAMILIAR WITH OTHER For questions about RCPB and SOFIPE financial products, 31% of members said they RCPB PRODUCTS were familiar with other RCPB products, and 88% said they intended on using their products in the future. This 88% reflects both members with open accounts and members without. For SOFIPE, 100% were familiar with other products and planned on using them in the future. INTENDED ON USING 88% THEIR PRODUCTS IN THE About 50% of RCPB members and 78% of SOFIPE members reported feeling pressure to FUTURE use products from the institution (RCPB). Although this outcome is potentially alarming, when asked, staff from both institutions felt that the women did not fully understand the difference between informing and encouraging women to use other products and services vs. applying pressure to use them. Sixty-four percent % from RCPB and 100% from SOFIPE claim they know where to go if they have any questions or complaints about the savings account. Ideally 100% from both institutions should know this since they both interact with community agents, but could be another misunderstanding in the question. Lastly, 100% of respondents from both organizations said they would recommend other savings groups to open an account with a financial institution.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 17 Table vi Linking with a Savings Account Indicators, Endline only

Indicator RCPB SOFIPE n= Endline n= Endline

Is your group required to pay fees to withdraw money 17 41% 37 100% from the savings account? (yes)

Does your groups’ money earn interest in the savings 17 41% 37 100% account with RCPB/SOFIPE? (yes)

How much of the group funds have you put in the savings 15 47% 37 16% account? Is it more than half or less than half? (more than half)

Do you think your group felt prepared when it opened a 17 100% 37 100% savings account at RCPB/SOFIPE? (yes)

Are you comfortable with the way the group fund is 17 100% 37 100% managed since your group opened an account with RCPB/ SOFIPE? (yes) Number who thinks their group has changed in a positive N/A N/A 37 73% way since it opened a savings account

Number who thinks their savings are ‘very safe’ in the N/A N/A 37 73% savings account Number who makes deposits in their savings account N/A N/A 37 69% once a month or longer Number who thinks their agent is ‘very available’ to make N/A N/A 37 92% deposits or withdrawals

Number who says their agent helps teach them how to N/A N/A 37 100% navigate the phone to make transactions on their account

Are you familiar with other financial products that RCPB 26 31% 37 100% has, besides the savings account?

Do you intend to use any of their other products in the 26 88% 37 100% future?

Do you feel pressure from anyone to use other products 26 50% 37 78% from the financial institution?

Do you know where to go for help if you have any 26 64% 37 100% questions or complaints about the savings account?

Would you recommend other SG to open an account with 26 100% 37 100% a financial Institution?

18 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series Conclusion

Thus far, RCPB and SOFIPE have trained many CAs, who have, in turn, formed several functioning savings groups. And many of these groups have linked to savings accounts.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 19 Completing this connection for members within two years is a significant accomplishment. With the many experimentations of formal financial linkages programs across Africa, a successful one such as this should be highlighted. The evidence from the Client Outcomes Endline Report highlights additional accomplishments of the program, such as poverty outreach, supporting member trust and inclusion in groups. These findings show that although linking to formal financial services comes with challenges and risks for SGs, it can function well for SGs and provide them with real social benefits. There are a few key areas that members may need assistance to fully understand, such as respectful treatment of members who cannot pay, a deeper understanding of how the account functions, not feeling pressure to take-up other products, and knowing where to go for assistance. RCPB and SOFIPE should mind these concerns, but overall be proud of a strong pilot program. We can learn more by continuing to observe the evolution of this experiment through sustained engagement with the two institutions.

20 UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series ABOUT UNCDF UNCDF makes public and private finance work for the poor in the world’s 47 least developed countries. With its capital mandate and instruments, UNCDF offers “last mile” finance models that unlock public and private resources, especially at the domestic level, to reduce poverty and support local economic development. UNCDF’s financing models work through two channels: financial inclusion that expands the opportunities for individuals, households, and small businesses to participate in the local economy, providing them with the tools they need to climb out of poverty and manage their financial lives; and by showing how localized investments — through fiscal decentralization, innovative municipal finance, and structured project finance — can drive public and private funding that underpins local economic expansion and sustainable development. By strengthening how finance works for poor people at the household, small enterprise, and local infrastructure levels, UNCDF contributes to SDG 1 on eradicating poverty and SDG 17 on the means of implementation. By identifying those market segments where innovative financing models can have transformational impact in helping to reach the last mile and address exclusion and inequalities of access, UNCDF contributes to a number of different SDGs.

ABOUT MICROLEAD MicroLead, a UNCDF global initiative which challenges financial service providers to develop, pilot and scale deposit services for low income, rural populations, particularly women, was initiated in 2008 with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and expanded in 2011 with support from Mastercard Foundation and LIFT Myanmar. It contributes to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 1 (end poverty), SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and promote sustainable agriculture) and SDG 5 (achieve gender equality and economic empowerment of women), as well as the Addis-Abeba Financing for Development Agenda (domestic resource mobilization).

MicroLead works with a variety of FSPs and Technical Service Providers (TSPs) to reach into previously untapped rural markets with demand-driven, responsibly priced products offered via alternative delivery channels such as rural agents, mobile phones, roving agents, point of sales devices and informal group linkages. The products are offered in conjunction with financial education so that customers not only have access but actually use quality services.

With a specific emphasis on savings, women, rural markets, and technology, MicroLead is a performance-based programme that supports partnerships which build the capacity of financial institutions to pilot and roll out sustainable financial services, particularly savings. As UNCDF rolls out the next phase of MicroLead, it will continue to focus on facilitating innovative partnerships that encourage FSPs to reach into rural remote populations, build on existing digital financial infrastructure and emphasize customer-centric product design. For more information, please visit www.uncdf.org/microlead. Follow UNCDF MicroLead on Twitter at @UNCDFMicroLead.

ABOUT MASTERCARD FOUNDATION Mastercard Foundation works with visionary organizations to provide greater access to education, skills training and financial services for people living in poverty, primarily in Africa. As one of the largest private foundations its work is guided by its mission to advance learning and promote financial inclusion to create an inclusive and equitable world. Based in Toronto, Canada, its independence was established by Mastercard when the Foundation was created in 2006. For more information and to sign up for the Foundation’s newsletter, please visit www.mastercardfdn.org. Follow the Foundation at @MastercardFdn on Twitter.

ABOUT GRAMEEN FOUNDATION Grameen Foundation USA (Grameen) is a global nonprofit organization that helps the world’s poorest people achieve their full potential by providing access to essential financial and agricultural information and services that can transform their lives. In 2016, Grameen and the global non-profit Freedom from Hunger joined forces under the banner of Grameen Foundation. The integration of the two organizations brings together Grameen’s expertise in digital innovation to end poverty and Freedom from Hunger’s rich experience providing the world’s poorest women with self-help tools to reduce hunger and poverty. Grameen is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with offices in the U.S., , Africa, and Latin America. For more information, please visit www.grameenfoundation.org or follow us on Twitter: @GrameenFdn.

UNCDF MicroLead Partner Case Study Series 21 MicroLead / UN Capital Development Fund

Two United Nations Plaza www.uncdf.org/microlead 26th Floor [email protected] New York, NY 10017 @UNCDF #LDCsForward #FinancialInclusion #LocalDev +1 212 906 6565 @UNCDFMicroLead +1 212 906 6479