Can Self-Regulation Protect Microfinance Clients?

> Posted by Daniel Rozas, Independent Microfinance Consultant

The following post was originally published on the CGAP Blog.

Last month the Smart Campaign launched its certification program. For those who care about client protection, this is an important and welcome milestone in what has been an impressive journey, which has included a broad spectrum of activities by funders to promote client protection.

In the first post in this series, Philippe Serres describes a project by the French development organization AFD and the Cambodian Microfinance Association (CMA) to support implementation of the Client Protection Principles, including support for MFIs seeking to undergo the Smart Certification process itself. Notably, this support comes alongside client protection requirements that funders like AFD, Proparco, and FMO have been incorporating into their financing agreements with MFIs. Thus, not only are MFIs being supported in their bid to strengthen client protection, they are increasingly required to do so by their funders.

In many respects, this is an exercise in self-regulation of client protection practices. The arrival of Smart Certification presents a unique opportunity to take these efforts to the next level and apply this self-regulation to the entire microfinance market in Cambodia and beyond.

Effective self-regulation rests on two key components: a transparent and consistent standard to measure compliance and a credible mechanism to ensure that it can be enforced. Smart Certification provides that standard. What could provide its enforcement?

Some may ask – is enforcement necessary? Several MFIs in Bosnia and India have already become Smart Certified, and one can expect quite a few others to follow suit in the coming months. Is not the positive brand image of being Smart Certified sufficient to create its own momentum?

I don’t believe so. The trouble is that some of the most important Principles of Client Protection, including prevention of over-indebtedness, require a coordinated approach in order to be effective. Experience has shown that, when left unconstrained, aggressive lenders can – and do – reap the benefits of their destructive practices, while spreading risk across the entire industry. It matters little whether a client’s first and second lenders are responsible. What drives over-indebtedness is that other lenders are willing to provide her with the third or fourth loan, and beyond. This places the original lenders in an impossible position of either having to walk away from their established clients or keeping them only at the cost of undermining their commitment to avoid over-indebtedness.

The requirements that AFD, Proparco, and FMO have incorporated into their financing agreements with MFIs in Cambodia show a plausible path. But what if these requirements went further, by making funding conditional on Smart Certification and bringing all major MFIs under that rubric? The power of the funders is considerable: 92 percent of borrowings of the eight largest Cambodian MFIs come from the broad spectrum of social and development investors that can be considered part of the microfinance investment community (Figure 1), nearly all of whom have endorsed the Smart Campaign. Meanwhile, the largest five of these funders account for a third of all MFI debt funding.

The leading investors also share something in common – most are Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), whose impact is magnified further still through their funding of Microfinance Investment Vehicles (MIVs). And a similar pattern holds for equity investments. Indeed, in a country like Cambodia, few if any leading MFIs can claim to be independent of DFI funding.

Their role as funding leaders puts the DFIs in a perfect position to kick-start enforcement of client protection by mandating that MFIs become Smart Certified as a precondition for investment. Because MFIs maintain multiple funding relationships, the impact of such a mandate would quickly propagate through the market (see Figure 2 in the full post on CGAP’s blog). After all, it does not matter who mandates the certification – it would redound to all of the certified MFI’s investors. As a result, as a critical mass of MFIs become Smart Certified through the mandate, even MIVs that receive no DFI funds would see many of their investees in the country becoming certified.

Reaching critical mass of certified MFIs would have two important outcomes: first, it would isolate the few remaining large MFIs unaffected by the mandate, at which point it’s likely that they would choose to become Smart Certified rather than risk being singled out in front of their regulators, politicians, and the local media. Second, as the mandate is rolled out across more countries, the same dynamic would emerge among funders and investors, whose portfolios would become increasingly populated by Smart Certified MFIs. At that point, it’s likely that investors would themselves start to apply the mandate rather than be singled out for having lower rates of Smart Certification than their competitors. In effect, by kick-starting the process, the original mandate could credibly push the microfinance sector from an equilibrium where Smart Certification is regarded as desirable but optional, to one where it is seen as required.

To read the rest of this post, visit the CGAP Blog

Image Credit: CGAP

Have you read?

Microfinance CEOs: Smart Campaign Certification is a “Clear Step” Toward Responsible Microfinance

Client Protection and Microfinance: Crossing a Threshold

Announcing the Launch of the Client Protection Certification Program!