Integrated and interoperable – are harmonised identity systems a realistic aim for states?

Late last year I discussed whether digital identity is the answer to universal individual legal identity.

In this blog I look at a related issue: states which struggle to provide a legal identity for all are being asked to take a leap forward and harmonise their identity systems to make them interconnected and interoperable.  What does this mean?  Is this a worthy, but unrealistic, goal in the current climate?  Are we better off looking at the organic expansion of identity systems which can better respond to the context in which they operate?

 

Inclusion

As I discussed in my recent blog, approximately 1.1 billion people globally do not have legal identity.  81% of those without a legal identity live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.  68% live in lower-middle income economies and a further 28% live in low-income economies.  Africa is estimated to have over 550 million people without legal identity ¹.  As I have written before, this is not surprising, since 46% of children on the continent are not registered at birth.

Inclusion is one of the biggest challenges that all states, but especially developing states, face when it comes to legal identity.  Inclusion leading to legal identity for all is difficult because of geographic remoteness of populations, marginalisation of parts of the population, or barriers for individuals to obtaining a legal identity.  Those barriers can be financial or procedural.  Or they can be caused by a lack of awareness either of the advantages of having a legal identity, or of entitlement to it.

When it comes to marginalised populations and communities, the legal identity problem is exacerbated by the state denying individuals the right to register or document themselves and their family, because of their ethnicity or even because of their gender ².

 

Fragmentation

Inclusion is the first issue, the second is that many states have multiple legal identity systems leading to fragmentation.  Nigeria is a good example of low legal identity inclusion, but where a multitude of incomplete legal identity systems exist alongside each other and compete for supremacy.  At a recent count, approximately 13 identity programmes are run by different government agencies, most of which are not interlinked ³.  Mexico and the Philippines are also examples of states where multiple legal identity systems are in operation, Mexico with six, and Philippines with as many as 28 ⁴.

Causes of fragmentation include regulation on data management, privacy and protection, which either does not exist or exists but is poorly enforced, and gaps in existing infrastructure.  Competition between the different state institutions responsible for identity systems also contributes to a lack of integration.

Many states have a range of so-called ‘functional’ programmes.  Each us designed to fulfil a specific function such as voter registration, customer or bank IDs, or healthcare cards which are in use alongside national ID initiatives.  But the more systems exist, the higher the costs of maintaining them.  A plethora of ID systems creates a false sense that a harmonised system of civil and national registration is not needed.  Donors in developing countries contribute to fragmentation by investing in functional digital ID systems designed to serve the aims of a particular project but which are not compatible with attempts at addressing other ID needs ⁵.

 

Integration

One way to look at integration is as the narrowing down of the number of identity documents and records that people need to make systems simpler and more cost effective.  Another is that an integrated system is one which can be used for multiple purposes.  Integrated systems often have a common identifier (such as a number) attached to individual records which then appear in different programme registers ⁶.   Integration is currently the focus of a number of programmes and agencies focusing on parts of the world where the fewest individuals have a legal identity.

The World Bank programme ID4D, ID4Africa and Mobile for Development are just some of the examples of programmes which aim to bring in excluded individuals through foundational systems which are designed to be integrated and which are supported by a sustainable infrastructure from their inception ⁷.

 

The interoperability of integrated identity systems

For identity systems to be cost-effective and sustainable, states are urged to consider an integrated system that is interoperable.  The interoperability of ID systems means:

“the ability of different databases or registries (e.g., national ID and civil registration systems) to communicate with each other and/or exchange information in a timely and low-cost manner, subject to appropriate privacy and security safeguards” ⁸

An example of this is Pakistan’s identity system. The fees levied for more sophisticated services are used to subsidise the costs of a basic ID system.  Similarly with Rwanda, which charges more for drivers licences and passports and uses those fees to lower the costs of a basic national ID ⁹.

For a digital identity to be effective it needs to be rooted in an updated and functioning legal framework that promotes both the accessibility of the system and its protective measures.  Digital identity also needs to connect to (be integrated) with and work well with (be interoperable) with other administrative systems.  Unsurprisingly, this requires investment in adequate information and communication technology ¹⁰.

 

Too much to chance? Too much complexity?

Identity management solutions should get around fragmented ID systems which are multiple, overlapping and often fail to cover the population fully.  Ideally, they will avoid the usual barriers people face in obtaining identity documents including complex paperwork, high fees, indirect costs such as travel to registration centre and geographic barriers where registration centres are inaccessible.

The evidence so far is that well-intentioned large-scale system plans face delays because they are labour intensive and costly.  Examples of this problem can be found in Kenya and Nigeria.  For a discussion of the issues in in Kenya and Nigeria, see my blogs here and here.  Large-scale identity systems often take many years to complete. While these systems are being developed and delayed, urgent problems like healthcare access or elections crop up and result in creating the conditions for the old problem: multiple systems which are not interoperable ¹¹.

In any event, those solutions do not necessarily respond to fundamental political barriers.  Political barriers include the barriers women face in obtaining (or retaining possessions of their) ID documents in the same way as men ¹².  They include the treatment of national sub-groups who are deliberately and actively being denied their legal identity by the state (as is currently happening in Assam, on which see my blogs here and here.

 

Could organic identity systems be a more responsive way forward?

It is indisputable that all too often the requirements for obtaining a legal identity are too onerous for ordinary people.  But when it comes to creating harmonised and interoperable ID systems, there seem to be just as many initiatives to fix that problem as there are existing discrete identity document schemes floating about.

Perhaps the answer is to see which national systems work best and enhance those to provide wider (and better trusted) coverage.  The identity systems which have the widest coverage and are the most trusted can be used to provide a de facto national ID.  This is what has happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo where voter cards used in a 2005 registration drive have become the ID card.  And this is what could happen in Bangladesh where the government plans to transition voter registration data into a national ID.  Or in Fiji with its well-distributed voter cards.  Or in Ethiopia where unique tax numbers have started being linked to multiple other systems ¹³.

Such ‘organic’ systems can allow for a slow scale roll-out and an adaptive and iterative approach to testing the viability of the ID systems’ wider use.  A low-fi approach that fits the realities of specific states and their population may well prove more successful than an off-the-shelf imported expensive, but unsuitable, ‘solution’.