A closer look at the latest migrant reintegration financing
On Monday, October 12, Mali’s Minister of Malians Abroad and African Integration, Mossa Ag Attaher, presided over a ceremony to award funding to 90 socio-economic reintegration projects for returning migrants. The total amount announced was 121 million CFA francs, averaging between 1 and 2 million per project. Out of 206 applications received, 90 were selected. The state fully finances the operation through the Special Investment Budget. The sectors supported are typical: livestock, market gardening, agriculture, commerce, handicrafts, and services. Beneficiaries are spread across Bamako and a few localities (Gao, Timbuktu, Nioro, Kita, San).
An opaque selection process
On paper, the announcement appears clean, national, and sovereign. It fits into the current rhetoric of valuing the diaspora and turning return into an opportunity. The minister called for “rigor,” “exemplary management,” and promised “territorial follow-up.” He even mentioned special attention to deportees from Saudi Arabia, often off the radar of the IOM.
However, behind the round figures and giant check photos, several gray areas persist and raise questions.
No public criteria grid has been published. It is unclear on what basis the 90 files were selected from 206. Who composed the selection committee? What elements were prioritized: real economic viability, level of vulnerability, time since return, presence of a serious business plan, or other less avowable considerations? Previous editions (75 projects for 100 million in 2025, 40 projects led by CSOs in 2024) also did not result in the publication of detailed criteria. The opacity of the process leaves open the question of possible favoritism, clientelism, or selection by network rather than by merit and potential impact.
No names, no details
The list of the 90 beneficiaries is not made public. Neither the exact amounts allocated to each, nor the precise nature of the selected projects. In a country where trust in the management of public funds remains fragile, this lack of transparency is problematic. How can one verify that the funds actually reach the intended recipients and do not dilute along the way? How can one ensure that relatives, activists, or intermediaries do not capture part of the envelope?
A promised follow-up, never demonstrated
The minister promises “territorial follow-up” to guarantee the sustainability of activities. Yet no public evaluation has been published on previous editions. How many projects from 2024 and 2025 still exist today? How many actually generate stable income and create jobs? How many have simply disappeared after the grant was exhausted? Without performance indicators, independent audits, and result communication, the system looks more like a series of one-off operations than an evaluable public policy.
The scale of the problem
Since 2022, the MPRR-SSA program alone (funded mainly by the European Union and implemented with the IOM) has facilitated the return of over 27,800 Malians and supported more than 14,000 reintegration projects. Against these volumes, 90 projects for 121 million CFA francs appear as a drop in the ocean. The national effort is real, but it remains symbolic. And that is precisely where the risk of a gap between communication and reality is greatest: presenting a limited operation as a “concrete commitment” and a “lever for local development” can create an illusion of massive action while the vast majority of returning migrants remain without structured support.
What is not said
The program is funded from the Special Investment Budget. In a tight budgetary context, it is not known exactly where these 121 million come from, nor whether they come at the expense of other priorities. It is also unknown whether beneficiaries are only recent returnees or include people who returned several years ago. Finally, nothing indicates how the system articulates (or not) with existing mechanisms of the IOM and technical partners, which can lead to duplication or, conversely, gaps in coverage.
The stated intention – helping compatriots rebuild an economic activity after an often traumatic migratory journey – is legitimate. But a public policy worthy of the name is judged by its transparency, traceability, and measurable results. For now, however, the system remains largely a black box: applications received, projects selected, funds disbursed… and silence on what follows.
As long as the list of beneficiaries, selection criteria, and impact assessments from previous years are not made public, doubt will remain permissible. And in an area as sensitive as the reintegration of returning migrants, doubt is never neutral.