How the Eurosystem assesses migration progress
From the first days of their launches in 2008 and 2009, the Eurosystem, which is comprised of the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the European Union Member States whose currency is the euro, has been monitoring the migration to the Credit Transfer ( ) and the Direct Debit ( ) Schemes by means of quantitative indicators that cover both the euro area perspective and the national dynamics. More recently, the Eurosystem has also established a set of qualitative indicators on the level of preparedness of the main stakeholder groups within each country. These qualitative assessments are performed on a best effort basis by the national central banks.1 (To view the quantitative and qualitative indicators, refer to the 'related links' below). On 21 March 2013 the Eurosystem published its first report on the migration to (see 'related links' below). It describes the state of play of the migration process in euro area countries towards the creation of a single market for credit transfers and direct debits in euro across Europe, and provides guidance on the management of the transition process.
Good progress on migration
All in all, SCTs are gaining good ground. The Scheme's relative simplicity in terms of the technical and contractual set-ups, its similarities with legacy schemes and its XML-conversion suitability have helped migration rates to increase. The use of SCTs accounted for 38.2 percent of the total credit transfer volume in the euro area in February 2013. The early preparedness at the interbank level, supported by -compliant infrastructures2, as well as the early migration to the Scheme by public administrations, have both played a crucial role. The preparedness for the Scheme is, in general, more advanced than for the Scheme. However, more progress needs to be made in terms of proper end-to-end usage of ISO 20022 message formats.
Looking at the national migration data, Slovenia and Finland seem to be the most advanced. Also, Belgium is already relatively well prepared. In other markets, the situation is very dynamic and preparations are on-going. Moreover, some countries have opted for temporary derogations with regard to specific technical issues. It would be very difficult to identify lagging countries at this stage, although it is clear that some countries tend to migrate faster than others.
The challenge of timely migration
The Scheme thus far fails to capture a substantial volume of transactions. The use of SDDs accounted for 2.3 percent of the total direct debits in the euro area in February 2013. Apart from Slovenia, which has already migrated to the Scheme, none of the other countries are close to completing their migration projects, including those with largest direct debit markets. Given the popularity of legacy direct debit payment instruments in certain countries, the materialisation of risks related to a late migration could damage the reputation of the new direct debit scheme, which could then be difficult to restore. This is a source of concern for the Eurosystem.
There is a combination of reasons for the slow uptake of the Scheme. In many cases, it can be attributed to the substantial workload associated with the technical and contractual issues surrounding the scheme. It could also be due to budgetary reasons - for example, the need to prevent the costly parallel maintenance of duplicate systems. Stakeholders in some countries (e.g. Germany, Spain and Austria) are also anticipating more advanced business offerings, for example, faster collection cycles. However, in some of the other cases, the tendency to postpone migration to the last possible moment seems to be due to the matter being a low priority.
Late migration is risky
In , many technical details need to be reflected in end-users' back-office systems and internal processes. Projects of this kind should not be left to the very last moment. In some cases, companies could even face the risk of some level of disruption in their handling of payment orders. Everyone should bear in mind that there will be limited capacity on the side of payment service providers ( ) and software vendors at the end of 2013, meaning that some migration projects could lack the resources for proper execution. These bottleneck risks, even though of an operational nature, could eventually affect the wider supply chain and even jeopardise the public's confidence in payment instruments. Therefore, the Eurosystem strongly advocates that all stakeholders, including big billers, public administrations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), migrate at a relatively early stage, preferably by the third quarter of 2013 at the latest.
- still some to-dos left
From today's perspective, meeting the migration deadlines does not seem to be problematic for . However, there is some urgency to complete ' preparations as soon as possible because preparations by end-users depend on them. In particular, are not fully prepared for making customer servicing channels, associated with payments initiation and cash management services, ready for transactions or for ensuring the availability of consumer protection measures to debtors. It is in the interest of to be fully prepared as soon as possible. In this view, the Eurosystem sees the end of the second quarter of 2013 as the crucial deadline.
Being at the heart of retail business, should also devote sufficient resources to familiarising end-users with the technical, business and contractual issues relating to migration, as well as to explaining how consumers' protection measures, established under the legal framework, could be exploited. The public's confidence in , in general, and in the Scheme, in particular, is of utmost importance and is a precondition for a smooth transition process.
Preparedness of end-users - a mixed, yet dynamic picture
Most of the big billers have already completed the planning phase and know what will mean for them in practical terms. However, when it comes to the actual implementation of the schemes, a number of corporates seem to have postponed their internal deadlines, even as far as the end of 2013.
Public administrations, and, in particular, central administrative authorities have taken the lead when it comes to migration, and, in many cases have already completed the migration process to the Scheme. Most public administrations either use direct debits to a rather limited extent or not at all. Therefore, they are unable to provide the market with the same kind of impetus as for the Scheme. The main migration challenges, however, lie on the side of municipalities or regional authorities, owing to a pretty low level of awareness of the project. The same is true with regard to their preparedness.
SMEs are very much dependent on the availability of -compliant software solutions developed by IT vendors and customer servicing channels developed by . It is, however, worrying that SMEs' awareness of is still fragmented and the level of preparedness is rather poor. Owing to their usually low individual market power, SMEs could be faced with somewhat higher fees for conversion services being offered by their or by other third parties.3 Also the everyday finances of SMEs could be specifically challenged by any level of payment disruption caused by bottlenecks at the end of the migration period.
There is no plan B
Migration to SCTs and SDDs is required by law: not only for , but also for big billers, SMEs, public administrations and consumers. Operating outside the law is not an option, neither in terms of reputation nor from the business perspective. The ability to initiate payments would come at a higher cost, and reconciliation would become more problematic. Moreover, after the migration deadline, will be obliged to refuse further processing of payments that are not delivered to them in the right technical format. Therefore, ignoring the risks of non-compliance, including the hope of a slow response on the part of the responsible authorities, would be a mistake.
The end date is not the final destination point
The migration deadline in February next year is one important milestone, but by far not the final stage in the development of retail payments. Changes and tangible benefits will become more pronounced over time, for instance by way of innovative services. may also trigger further improvements in processes and workflows, for example by exploring the possibility of using e-invoicing across Europe. Moreover, the roadmap also encompasses card payments. The industry, supported by the public authorities, is working on further steps to harmonise this important market. Let us recall the goal of , as defined more than a decade ago: making cashless payments in euro, across Europe fast, safe and efficient. We still have a long way to go, of course, even after February next year; however, we are on good course.
Wiebe Ruttenberg is Head of the Market Integration Division in the Directorate General Payments and Market Infrastructure of the European Central Bank (ECB). The author would like to thank Sarunas Grigas and Monika Hartmann for their substantial contribution to this article.
The views expressed in this text are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ECB.
Related articles in this issue:
Learn to Love SEPA: the 1 February 2014 Migration Deadline Mandated by European Union Law Will Not Go Away. The focus must now be on joining forces to ensure that every market participant in the euro area required to achieve SEPA compliance will meet this deadline
If You Have Not Migrated to SEPA Yet - Get Ready and Get Inspired: SEPA Pioneers on the Demand Side Share Best Practice. The SEPA deadline will not move from 1 February 2014 so act today to ensure your compliance
UNION TANK Eckstein: "SEPA Credit Transfer and SEPA Direct Debit Allow Everyone to Do More and Better Business across Europe". This company looks forward to 1 February 2014 when migration to SEPA will be completed in the euro area
Related articles in previous issues:
1 Quantitative indicators: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/sepa/about/indicators/html/index.en.html. Qualitative indicators: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/sepa/about/countries/html/index.en.html.
2 Infrastructure (or an interbank funds transfer system) is a formal arrangement based on private contract or law, with multiple membership, common rules and standardised arrangements, for the transmission, clearing, netting and/or settlement of monetary obligations arising between the members, in which all (or almost all) participants are credit institutions.
3 In a post-migration environment (February 2014 or February 2016 respectively), could still offer conversion services, provided that these services are operationally fully independent from all subsequent payment services offered by that . The conversion would practically take place prior to the "receipt" of the payment instruction by the .
If you would like to comment on this article, please identify yourself with your first and last name. Your name will appear next to your comment. Email addresses will not be published. Please note that by accessing or contributing to the discussion you agree to abide by the EPC website conditions of use.