CPMI Brief No 2

In cooperation with

Monitoring cross-border
payment developments:
a regional analysis of AMF
member countries
February 2024
CPMI Briefs are written by staff members of the Bank for International Settlements’ Committee on
Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) secretariat, sometimes in cooperation with other experts.
The views expressed in them are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the Bank for
International Settlements (BIS), the CPMI or its member central banks.

This Brief is written by staff members of the CPMI secretariat and the Arab Monetary Fund (AMF). The
views expressed in this Brief are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the AMF, the
BIS, the CPMI, or its member central banks.

© Bank for International Settlements 2024. All rights reserved.

Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated.

[Link]
email@[Link]

Follow us
CPMI Brief No 2
In cooperation with
Monitoring cross-border payment
developments: a regional analysis of
AMF member countries
Habib Attia, Marc Glowka, Anamaria Illes
and Thomas Lammer
February 2024
Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional
analysis of AMF member countries1

Habib Attia, Marc Glowka, Anamaria Illes and Thomas Lammer

Highlights

 Making cross-border payments cheaper, faster, more transparent and easier to access across the
globe is a priority for the G20. The Bank for International Settlements’ Committee on Payments
and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the Arab Monetary Fund (AMF) support this global effort
and cooperate on the monitoring of cross-border payment developments.
 Cross-border payments are important for AMF member countries,2,3 because of the growing
volume of interbank transfers in the region and the relevance of remittances for it. A stocktake
conducted in 2021 showed that the operating hours of payment systems within the region largely
overlap with the “global settlement window”.4 However, compared with the global average, non-
banks are less likely to have direct access to payment systems.
 Regular monitoring of cross-border payment developments and analysis of progress at the
regional level can provide useful insights and demonstrate progress on identified priority actions.
The 2023 cross-border payments monitoring survey of central banks, conducted by the CPMI and
supported by the AMF, will provide further insights on developments over the past two years.

Introduction

The G20 has made enhancing cross-border payments a priority under the Saudi Arabian presidency in
2019. Faster, cheaper, more transparent and more inclusive cross-border payment services would deliver
widespread benefits for citizens and economies as well as supporting economic growth, international
trade, global development and financial inclusion. These enhancements could be especially beneficial for
economic growth in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs) and support regional
integration initiatives, for example through more efficient international remittances or reducing frictions
in regional trade.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) in coordination with the Bank for International Settlements'
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and other major international organisations

1
We thank David Brown, Emilie Fitzgerald and Tara Rice for their valuable comments and are grateful to Ilaria Mattei and Nolan
Young Zabala for their excellent research assistance.
2
AMF member countries (see here) have a combined population of 411 million people (AMF (2022)).
3
The terms “country”, “jurisdiction” and “economy” used in this publication also cover territorial entities that are not states as
understood by international law and practice but for which data are separately and independently maintained. The designations
used and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the BIS
concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries. Names of countries or other territorial entities are used in a short form which is not necessarily their official
name.
4
The global settlement window is a concept introduced in CPMI (2022a). The global settlement window is the time frame during
which the highest number of real-time gross settlement (RTGS) systems on a global level are open, allowing cross-border
transactions to settle across those jurisdictions without delays being incurred, ceteris paribus. At present, the global settlement
window is best characterised as the time period from 06:00 to 11:00 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) on working days.

Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries 1

and standard-setting bodies developed a roadmap for enhancing cross-border payments. The roadmap
was endorsed by the G20 in 2020 and aims to address long-standing challenges in the cross-border
payments market, including high costs, low speed, limited access and insufficient transparency. The
programme comprised the necessary elements of a globally coordinated response in the form of a set of
19 building blocks, based on a CPMI report to the G20 (CPMI (2020a,b)). The following year, the G20
endorsed quantitative targets at the global level for addressing these challenges (“G20 targets”), most of
which are expected to be achieved by end-2027 (FSB (2021)).

In line with the G20 targets, policymakers in Arab Monetary Fund (AMF) member countries (“the
region”) have set out an agenda to enhance intraregional cross-border payments by increasing their
efficiency and speed, as well as reducing their costs and liquidity requirements. These developments
should be supported by improved financial crime compliance and payment system oversight. Enhanced
cross-border payments would ultimately support regional financial and economic integration by furthering
the efficiency and harmonisation of trade within the region.

At the global level, the CPMI has largely completed its foundational work, which included
stocktakes, analysis and reports. One of these stocktakes explored the status of access to payment systems,
their operating hours and the interlinking between payments systems. The AMF supported this stocktake
in 2021 by promoting the survey among its member countries. This effort contributed to the high response
rate of central banks within the region – they comprised around 15% of the total responses. In October
2022, the FSB published a prioritisation plan and engagement model for taking the programme forward
(FSB (2022)). The plan reflects that the roadmap has reached an inflection point and needs to move to
implementing practical projects to enhance cross-border payment arrangements to achieve the agreed
quantitative targets. A prioritised roadmap published in February 2023 details the specific actions that will
be taken under three priority themes to achieve the targets by 2027 (FSB (2023)). The three interconnected
themes for orienting and focusing the current phase of the programme are (i) payment system
interoperability and extension; (ii) legal, regulatory and supervisory frameworks; and (iii) cross-border data
exchange and message standards.

This paper provides insights on the importance of cross-border payments for the region,
evidenced by international remittances. It documents the status of payment system interoperability and
extension, as well as legal, regulatory and supervisory aspects in the region at the launch of the cross-
border payments programme. Finally, it provides an outlook for regular monitoring across the priority
themes going forward.

Importance of cross-border payments for the region

Increasing regional trade, digitalisation, and labour and capital mobility are indicators of continued growth
in cross-border payments within the region. Migrant workers typically use international remittance
services, both within the region and with one leg of the transaction outside the region, to support their
families in their country of origin.

Countries within the region are important senders and receivers of remittances. The estimated
total value of received remittance (inflows from other countries within the region and from outside the
region) was $62.4 billion in 2022, equalling 2.4% of the gross domestic product (GDP) across 14 countries
of the region for which data is available. On the sending side (outflows), remittances had a total value of
$70 billion in 2022, or 2.7% of those countries’ combined GDP (Graph 1.A). However, there are notable
differences at country-level. While Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia are predominantly remittance-sending
jurisdictions, remittance inflows (measured as a share of GDP) are substantially higher in Egypt, Jordan,
Morocco, Tunisia, and particularly in Comoros. Lebanon stands out from the other countries in the region,
as not only is the main receiver of remittances (29.5% of GDP), but it is also the third largest sender of
remittances (7.9% of GDP) in 2022 (Graph 1.B).

2 Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries

Scale of remittances for selected AMF member countries1
In per cent of gross domestic product Graph 1

A. Remittance inflows/outflows across countries analysed B. Country-level breakdown in 2022

LB
4 24
KM

Inflow remittances
PS
16
3

JO
MA 8
2 TN EG
SD
DJ SA OM KW 0
1 DZ IQ
01 04 07 10 13 16 19 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Inflow remittances Outflow remittances Outflow remittances

1
Countries included are DJ, DZ, EG, IQ, JO, KM, KW, LB, MA, OM, PS, SA, SD and TN and have been chosen depending on data availability for
both inflow and outflow remittances. For PS, 2021 data is used for 2022 calculations.

Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook; World Bank-KNOMAD, December 2023; authors’ calculations.

The importance of intra- and interregional remittances differs substantially across AMF member
countries. Palestine, Jordan and Egypt receive the largest share of their remittances from other countries
in the region, while Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia receive more than nine out of 10 remittances from
countries outside the region (Graph 2.A). On the sending side, most of the remittances from Jordan,
Lebanon and Libya go to another country within the region, while for Oman and Qatar this is the case for
fewer than 20% of remittances sent (Graph 2.B).

Remittance flows among AMF member countries in 2021

Value share of remittances in per cent Graph 2

A. Largest receiving countries1 B. Largest sending countries2

DZ AE
EG BH
JO JO
LB KW
MA LB
PS LY
QA OM
SD PS
SO QA
TN SA
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Within Arab region Outside Arab region
1
Countries were ordered based on their absolute value of inflow remittance in US dollars. 2
Countries were ordered based on their absolute
value of outflow remittance in US dollars.

Source: KNOMAD/World Bank Bilateral Remittance Matrix 2021, December 2022.

Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries 3

 While remittances are often closed loop or on-us transfers5 and/or bundled for clearing and
settlement, higher-value cross-border retail payments (eg consumer-to-business or business-to-
business transactions) and cross-border wholesale payments (eg transfers between financial
institutions) are typically exchanged via correspondent banking arrangements. Between 2011 and
2022, most countries within the region saw a considerable increase in payments exchanged via
correspondent banking arrangements, despite a decreasing number of active correspondents.
Graph 3 shows the cumulative number of messages (volume) and their total value in USD over that
period. Given the importance and continued growth of cross-border payments within the region and
beyond, enhanced cross-border payments would not only benefit to an increasing number of payers and
payees in the region, but would also be a considerable contribution to achieving the global G20 targets.

Changes in correspondent banking relationships 2011–22

Cumulative transactions and correspondent banking relationships (CBRs) Graph 3

200

100

–100

DZ BH KM DJ EG IQ JO KW LB LY MR MA OM PS QA SA SD SY TN AE YE
Cumulative transaction: Volume Value
CBRs (counterparties abroad)
Sources: National Bank of Belgium; SWIFT BI Watch.

Payment system interoperability and extension: a regional and global

priority alike

To achieve the G20 targets, the CPMI, the FSB and other implementing bodies have begun to focus and
prioritise their future work, drawing from the analysis to date and the feedback received from stakeholders.
One priority theme focuses on improving payment system interoperability, extending real-time gross
settlement (RTGS) system operating hours and expanding access to payment systems (FSB (2023)). This
prioritisation was informed by the findings of the 2021 stocktake survey, which also forms the basis for
the regional analysis of these three aspects presented in the following.

5
In the case of closed loop or on-us/intragroup transfer, the payment service provider (PSP) of the payer is the same entity (or
part of the same group) as the PSP of the payer. This can be the case for proprietary arrangements or multinational banks that
are present in the payer and the payee’s jurisdiction. In this case, rather than relying on a connection between institutions or
infrastructures in the two jurisdictions, the PSP itself serves to bridge the two jurisdictions (CPMI (2018)).

4 Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries

Improving access to payment systems for cross-border payments

The G20 cross-border payments programme considers expanding access to (domestic) payment systems
that settle in central bank money as important to increase the speed and reduce the cost of cross-border
payments (CPMI (2020a,b), FSB (2020c)). Hence, access to payment systems is a priority action in achieving
the G20 targets (FSB (2021, 2023)). Access to payment systems can be either direct or indirect, depending
on the needs of participants as well as the institutional framework in place for a specific payment system.
Direct access generally means that an entity has the capacity to instruct, clear and settle payments on its
own behalf. Such access typically requires the entity to have a settlement account at a central bank. In
contrast, indirect access involves a direct participant as an intermediary, thus offering an alternative to
direct payment system access. In general, expanded access to payment systems can foster competition
and innovation as all payment service providers (PSPs) would operate on the same level playing field.
Consequently, end users would benefit from a greater choice and better pricing, and financial inclusion
can be improved (CPMI (2022b)).
While banks with a local presence are typically allowed to become direct participants, non-banks
can find it more challenging, despite their growing importance in payments. Based on the survey results,
specialised payment services that include the provision of electronic wallet services, the acquisition of
payment transactions, and money or value transfer services are available in 86% of the responding
jurisdictions and are often offered by non-banks (Graph 4). In 76% of the responding jurisdictions, non-
banks can process electronic funds or value transfer for third parties. The provision of e-money accounts
and services (57%) as well as transaction accounts (43%) is comparable with the level in other EMDEs but
lags behind the level of advanced economies (AEs).

Payment services that non-bank PSPs are allowed to offer

Share of respondents within country group Graph 4

80

60

40

20

0
accounts (other than
e-money accounts)

Provision of e-money
accounts and services

Provision of electronic

Acquiring of payment

funds/value transfer
Provision of transaction

Issuing of payment

Money or value
wallet services

instruments

transactions

Processing of electronic

for third parties

transfer services

Payment initiation

Account information
Virtual asset services

Other types of service

services

services

AMF EMDE AE
Calculations are based on the number of respondent countries that permit non-banks to offer payment services.

AE = Advanced economies; AMF = Member countries of the Arab Monetary Fund; EMDE = Emerging market and developing economies.

Source: 2021 CPMI survey.

Non-bank PSPs can offer transaction accounts and give people without traditional bank accounts
access to digital payments, including cross-border payments. Current regulatory and political initiatives
seek to increase the availability of these services in the region. Alternatives to traditional credit transfers

Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries 5

particularly include, for cross-border payments, remittance services that allow individuals and businesses
to send and receive funds both domestically and internationally, and mobile payment services that let
customers send and receive payments using their mobile phones. The growing adoption of mobile phones
and an expanding range of mobile money service offerings can help to reduce remittance costs and
increase financial inclusion. Some AMF member countries have taken steps to license non-banks to hold
customer funds, typically as e-money, in transaction accounts for sending and receiving payments.

Stakeholders in the cross-border payment ecosystem, such as non-bank PSPs, financial market
infrastructure (FMIs) and foreign banks often face challenges in becoming direct members of multiple
payment systems across different jurisdictions. Such challenges include, among others, the lack of
harmonisation between legal and regulatory frameworks as well as operational, technical and financial
barriers. Similar access requirements for payment systems could encourage PSPs to expand their service
offerings to different jurisdictions. However, at a global level, only a minority of payment systems currently
provide direct access to entities other than domestic banks. Access to payment systems is typically more
restrictive in the region, compared with the global average and particularly AEs, even for domestic financial
institutions with a banking licence (Graph 5.A). While the primary focus of the cross-border payments
programme lies on direct access, in some cases indirect access may be a viable alternative that can achieve
net risk-efficiency benefits for certain types of provider. However, the difference is even more pronounced
for indirect access, which is offered only to domestic financial institutions by one third of the surveyed
payment systems in the region, compared with 60% in AEs (Graph 5.B). One notable exception is direct
access by domestic central banks, which is the highest in the region (78%) compared with other AEs and
EMDEs.

Type of entity eligible for payment system access1

As percentage of reported payment systems Graph 5

A. Type of entity eligible for direct access2 B. Type of entity eligible for indirect access3
Domestically located financial Domestically located financial
institution with a banking licence institution with a banking licence
Domestically located non-bank
Domestic central bank payment service providers
Foreign branches/subsidiaries located
Foreign branches/subsidiaries located in the payment system’s jurisdiction
in the payment system’s jurisdiction
Domestic central bank
Domestically located non-bank
payment service providers
Foreign entities located abroad
Domestically located FMIs
Domestically located FMIs

Other Other

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60
AMF EMDE AE
AE = Advanced economies; AMF = Member countries of the Arab Monetary Fund; EMDE = Emerging market and developing economies.
1
The category “Other” includes domestically located broker-dealers, domestically domiciled commercial entities including technical
aggregators and the option “others” given to the respondent. 2 Participants that have direct access are participants in a system
that directly exchange transfer orders with other participants in the system, without an intermediary, and are directly responsible for
settling them. In some systems, direct participants also exchange orders on behalf of indirect participants. The sample includes 81
payment systems in CPMI jurisdictions and 103 payment systems in non-CPMI jurisdictions. 3 Participants that have indirect access
are firms that rely on the services offered by other firms (participants that have direct access) to use the payment system’s facilities.
The sample includes 81 payment systems in CPMI jurisdictions and 103 payment systems in non-CPMI jurisdictions.

Source: 2021 CPMI survey.

While direct access by foreign branches and/or subsidiaries located in the payment system’s
jurisdiction is on average higher in AMF member countries compared with the EMDE average, it is
considerably lower than in AEs. Approximately one out of five payment systems have an access policy that
allows non-bank PSPs to become direct participants, which is comparable with AEs, but lower than the

6 Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries

EMDE average. Technological innovation and changes to the legal and regulatory frameworks have
contributed to the increased importance of non-bank PSPs in the region, as in many other parts of the
world. These non-bank PSPs are increasingly interested in directly accessing payment systems to reduce
their dependence on banks. Authorities and payment system operators might face barriers that need to
be overcome to expand access to payment systems. Legal and regulatory frameworks can limit the type
of entity eligible for direct access to payment systems or central bank settlement accounts. Operational,
technical and financial barriers to be considered can include funding requirements, the provision of
adequate staffing and technical infrastructure investments. The CPMI has developed a self-assessment
framework as a tool that could help authorities and payment system operators to holistically evaluate the
benefits, risks and barriers of expanding direct access (CPMI (2022b)). Payment system operators are
encouraged to conduct self-assessments, based on the guidance developed by the CPMI, identify any
changes required to expand access and map out extension plans as part of the cross-border payments
programme. The CPMI will help coordinate central banks in conducting this self-assessment, among other
actions, via a community of practice for central bank-operated payment systems (FSB (2023)).

Extending and aligning payment system operating hours for cross-border payments

An extension of RTGS system operating hours across jurisdictions could speed up cross-border payments,
improve liquidity management, reduce settlement risk and enhance the performance of ancillary payment
systems that may be used for cross-border payments. RTGS systems typically facilitate settlement in central
bank money and, as a result, provide the foundation on which other payment systems and arrangements
involved in cross-border payments rely. However, limited RTGS operating hours across jurisdictions can
lead to a delay in cross-border settlement, especially between countries with significant time zone
differences (CPMI (2022a)).
The extension and greater alignment of the operating hours of RTGS systems could help to
address the slow speed and other challenges affecting cross-border payments, as well as help other
building blocks take effect. In addition, while a focus on RTGS systems is appropriate given their key role
in supporting cross-border payments, in particular fast payment systems (FPS) have operating hours and
execution times that could potentially alleviate certain frictions in cross-border payments (CPMI (2022a)).
At a global level, operating hours vary significantly across RTGS systems in different jurisdictions,
and there are sizeable gaps in their daily operating hours that at least partially explain delays in the
processing of cross-border payments. On a daily basis, gaps in operating hours exist across nearly all
jurisdictions, affecting both AEs and EMDEs, although gaps tend to be larger for EMDEs. Gaps are
particularly pronounced across regions, exceeding 20 hours per day for some jurisdiction pairs and
sometimes approach (or even span) the entire day. Daily gaps are less sizeable, but still noticeable, for
jurisdictions within the same region due to smaller time zone differences (CPMI (2022a)).
RTGS operating hours within the region are, with an average of eight hours, considerably shorter
than the global average of almost 11 hours (Graph 6). However, the operating hours of Arab RTGS systems
largely coincide with the global settlement window and have a considerable overlap with RTGS systems
that settle the major reserve currencies as well as CLS in performing foreign exchange settlement. In
particular, as 55% of cross-border payments in the region in 2018 were denominated in US dollars, a large
overlap with the United States is important. Furthermore, RTGS systems in the region have an overlap with
RTGS systems in Asia which are relevant for major remittance corridors.
Gaps in operating hours are even greater when considering weekly availability, as only a limited
number of RTGS systems are available on weekends. At present, average operating hours on a weekly
basis are almost 25% less than if current average weekday operating hours were to apply throughout the
entire week. This gap can at least partly be attributed to the fact that standard business days can differ
across the region, eg from Sunday to Thursday in many countries in the region compared with Monday to
Friday in most other jurisdictions, limiting the overlap of standard business days to four days a week.

Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries 7

RTGS system operating hours on working days (GMT) Graph 6

Hours of day (GMT)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
AE
BH
DZ
EG
IQ
JO
KW
LB
LY
MA
OM
PS
QA
SA
SD
TN
AFAQ
BUNA
EA
GB
JP
US
CN
HK
ID
IN
MY
PK
VN
CLS
This graph is based on RTGS system operating hours in 2021. The global settlement window is marked red. AFAQ and Buna are regional
payments systems owned by the Gulf Payments Company and the Arab Monetary Fund respectively.

Sources: 2021 CPMI survey; authors’ calculations.

Multilateral platforms and interlinking of payments systems

Another approach to enhancing cross-border payments is the interlinking of payment systems or the
establishment of multilateral platforms. As this can shorten transaction chains, reduce overall costs and
increase the transparency and speed of payments it is an important element of the G20 cross-border
payments programme. In principle, an interlinking arrangement allows banks and other PSPs to transact
with each other without requiring them to participate in the same payment system or use intermediaries
(ie correspondent banks). Multilateral platforms and interlinking arrangements share several

8 Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries

characteristics. Both involve comparable design choices and similar considerations of benefits, costs and
risks. Multilateral platforms too can form part of the interlinking arrangements. Interlinking arrangements
are typically classified into four stylised models (Graph 7).

Stylised models for interlinking cross-border payment systems1, 2 Graph 7

Single access point Bilateral link

Jurisdiction A Jurisdiction B Jurisdiction A Jurisdiction B

Common platform

Jurisdiction A Jurisdiction B Jurisdiction A Jurisdiction B

Payment service provider (PSP) Payment system Multilateral platform

1
Examples include Hong Kong’s RMB CHATS links with Mainland China’s payment systems (single access point), Directo a México (bilateral
link), the Regional Payment and Settlement System (REPSS) of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (hub and spoke) and
Southern African Development Community (SADC)-RTGS (common platform). 2 The multilateral platform includes the participants and the
entity operating the arrangement. In the hub-and-spoke model, the participants are payment systems. In the common platform model, the
participants are PSPs.

Sources: CPMI, BIS Innovation Hub, IMF and World Bank (2023).

At the time of the survey, slightly fewer than one tenth of payment systems (26) at a global level
reported that interlinking arrangements had been established with foreign payment systems. In the region,
three payment systems reported that they maintain linkages with foreign payment systems. In general,
payment systems with interlinking arrangements are typically those that have been launched only recently.
A potential explanation might be that newly launched systems are more likely to use modern technologies
and standardised data formats, making it easier to interlink them. Existing interlinking arrangements are
more likely to be established within a region than across the globe. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the
interlinking of FPS in particular has become increasingly important over the past two years and additional
links have been launched, eg between Singapore and Thailand as well as Singapore and India.
With Buna, the AMF founded in 2018 a cross-border and multicurrency payment system
comparable with the common platform model laid out in Graph 7. Buna was created to implement the
decision by the Council of Governors of the Arab Central Banks and Monetary Authorities to mandate the
AMF to establish a cross-border payment system that supports further economic and financial integration
between AMF member countries and expand trade and investment activities with the global trading
partners. Buna went live in 2020 and enables commercial banks, central bank and other financial

Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries 9

institutions, in the region and elsewhere, to send and receive payments in both regional and key
international currencies. Buna is operated by the Arab Regional Payments Clearing and Settlement
Organization (ARPCSO), which is owned by the AMF. More than 100 participants can currently make
payments in regional (AED, SAR, EGP and JOD) and international currencies (USD and EUR). By offering
the exchange of payment messages and data in real time and settlement in a variety of currencies, Buna
facilitates cross-border payments within the region. Buna has adopted a centralised model, consisting of
a single, multicurrency and pre-funded platform. As a result, every established link can operate separately
for every currency. This model simplifies and streamlines the process of connecting ancillary systems. At
the same time, this makes it attractive for international payment systems to establish links with Buna, as
they will have a single point of connection to all participating AMF member countries. More international
linkages would enhance cross-border payment flow from and to the region.

Outlook on the next phase of the work and monitoring of progress

With the majority of initial actions completed, and recognising that the quantitative targets will not be
achieved merely on paper through analyses and recommendations, the next phase of work will focus on
the three priority themes identified: (i) payment system interoperability and extension; (ii) legal, regulatory
and supervisory frameworks; and (iii) cross-border data exchange and message standards (FSB (2023)).
Implementing actions and projects in support of these themes was determined to be the best way to
achieve the cross-border payments targets, which serve as a guiding principle in the prioritisation of the
next phase of the G20 cross-border payments programme deliverables. Learning from the experiences in
different regions can help jurisdictions as they move towards enhanced cross-border payments. Regular
engagement of the public sector with senior managers and with technical experts will bring both strategic
perspectives and subject matter expertise to ongoing projects. The CPMI has launched a central bank
community of practice, in which the AMF participates, and an industry task force on payments
interoperability and extension. The taskforce has approximately 30 members from a wide variety of
jurisdictions and regions, including Buna, and comprising different types of private sector institution and
business model. The FSB has in parallel launched a taskforce on legal, regulatory and supervisory aspects
and holds an annual cross-border payments summit.
As work moves forward in this new phase of practical actions, focused and effective monitoring
plays a crucial role in the G20 cross-border payments programme. Measurement against the outcome
targets endorsed by the G20 leaders will allow to determine the progress made in improving the speed,
access and transparency of cross-border payments and reducing their costs to users. Monitoring progress
on infrastructure changes is equally important and provides insights into the current status of the
challenges faced. Comprehensive and timely information from central banks and other authorities about
the global state of play will also help to identify actions and areas that require greater attention, allowing
the programme to be adjusted as needed. As such, engagement and updates from as many jurisdictions
as possible are needed if the overall global effectiveness of the cross-border payments programme is to
be measured effectively.
Hence, the CPMI, in cooperation with the FSB, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank
and regional institutions such as the AMF, invited central banks to participate in a monitoring survey on
progress made in the priority themes earlier in 2023. Central banks were asked to respond to a survey of
their respective jurisdiction’s RTGS systems, FPS and deferred net settlement systems with a focus on
enhancing cross-border payments. The aim was to ensure a good coverage of both G20 and non-G20
jurisdictions. The survey should be repeated annually and will allow the CPMI to analyse the progress made
and identify regional trends. Initial findings fed into the FSB’s annual progress report to the G20 and a
comprehensive analysis will be published early 2024. The monitoring survey results will inform work by
international and regional institutions as they seek to implement changes in market infrastructures and
arrangements in pursuit of the G20 targets.

10 Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries

Annex A: Country codes

AE United Arab Emirates IQ Iraq PK Pakistan

BH Bahrain JO Jordan PS Palestine
CN China JP Japan QA Qatar
DJ Djibouti KM Comoros SA Saudi Arabia
DZ Algeria KW Kuwait SD Sudan
EA euro area LB Lebanon SO Somalia
EG Egypt LY Libya SY Syria
GB United Kingdom MA Morocco TN Tunisia
HK Hong Kong SAR MR Mauritania US United States
ID Indonesia MY Malaysia VN Vietnam
IN India OM Oman YE Yemen

References

Arab Monetary Fund (AMF) (2020): Cross-border retail payments and prospects for the Arab region.
——— (2023): The joint Arab economic report 2022, April.
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) (2018): Cross-border retail payments, February.
——— (2020a): Enhancing cross-border payments: building blocks of a global roadmap, July.
——— (2020b): Enhancing cross-border payments: building blocks of a global roadmap – technical
background note, July.
——— (2022a): Extending and aligning payment system operating hours for cross-border payments , May.
——— (2022b): Improving access to payment systems for cross-border payments: best practices for self-
assessments, May.
——— (2022c): Interlinking payment systems and the role of application programming interfaces: a
framework for cross-border payments, July.
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, BIS Innovation Hub, International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and World Bank (2023): Exploring multilateral platforms for cross-border payments, January.
Financial Stability Board (2020): Enhancing cross-border payments: Stage 3 roadmap, October.
——— (2021): Targets for addressing the four challenges of cross-border payments: final report, October.
——— (2022): G20 roadmap for enhancing cross-border payments: priorities for the next phase of work,
October.
——— (2023): G20 roadmap for enhancing cross-border payments: priority actions for achieving the G20
targets, February.

Monitoring cross-border payment developments: a regional analysis of AMF member countries 11

Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

ISSN (online) 2958-8758

ISBN (online) 978-92-9259-694-1