Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management (CPTM ...cptm.org/documents/CFMM_Brief_ 2016.pdf · On behalf of the CPTM Chairman, Tan Sri Datuk Dr Omar A. Rahman, and the CPTM

Commonwealth Finance

Ministers Meeting Washington, D.C., 6 October 2016

Commonwealth Partnership for

Technology Management (CPTM)

Brief

on

Adaptive Flexibility Approaches

to Financial Inclusion

in a Digital Age

- Recommendations and Proposals –

CPTM

CPTM Smart Partners’ Hub

63 Catherine Place

London SW1E 6DY

September 2016

2

CONTENTS

Foreword 3

Recommendations and Proposals 5

Overview - A Strategy for Adaptive Flexibility Approaches

to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age 7

Part I - Financial Inclusion and Interoperability

Sharing Experiences: National Contexts of Financial Inclusion 11

Part II - Strategic Interdependencies for Financial Inclusion:

Statistics, Data & Standards in a Digital Landscape 15

Part III - Special Focus on Blockchain:

A New Digital Disrupter and the effect on Financial Services 23

ANNEXES

Annex I: Definitions of Key Terms 33

Annex II: Smart Reading Tips 35

Annex III:

o About CPTM 39

o CPTM Smart Partnership Financial Inclusion Initiative 40

o The CPTM Smart Partnership Approach

to Socio-Economic Transformation 41

3

CPTM

Adaptive Flexibility Approaches to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age

CFMM, 6 October 2016, Washington, D.C.

Foreword

On behalf of the CPTM Chairman, Tan Sri Datuk Dr Omar A. Rahman, and the CPTM

Board of Directors, I am pleased to forward, for your consideration, a CPTM Brief,

including recommendations and proposals, on adaptive flexibility approaches to Financial

Inclusion in the digital age. The Brief forms part of the CPTM annual submission to the

Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting, which have been provided each year since the

establishment of CPTM at the 1995 CHOGM in Auckland, New Zealand.

Commonwealth Central Bank Governors are invited to also consider the issues derived

from the 5th CPTM Central Bank Governors Think Tanking, which took place in London in

June 2016. We would like to thank and congratulate Central Bank Governors and Smart

Partners for this year’s Think Tanking session, which couldn’t have been more timely and

relevant considering today’s challenges and opportunities, as articulated so well by Mark

Carney in a speech he gave earlier this year (see speech extracts overleaf).

The Brief begins by outlining why it matters that a strategy for adaptive flexibility

approaches to Financial Inclusion in the current digital age should emerge and be

monitored for specific national contexts. The Brief then continues by sharing country

experiences of financial inclusion and interoperability, followed by elucidating the

relevance of statistics, data and standards to financial inclusion.

With special insights from CPTM Smart Partner Mike Brookbanks, this year’s Brief also

includes a special focus on blockchain technology as a new disruptive technology, and its

effect on the financial services industry. The Brief is based on highly relevant and up-to-

date sources of information, including webcasts recorded at the CPTM Smart Partners’

London Hub.

The CPTM Chairman and Board of Directors, as well as CPTM Smart Partners, look

forward to supporting Commonwealth Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in

their efforts to develop adaptive flexibility approaches to Financial Inclusion in the digital

age.

Dr Mihaela Smith September 2016

CEO, CPTM

CPTM Smart Partners’ Hub

London

4

CPTM



Extracts from Speech entitled “Enabling the FinTech transformation: Revolution, Restoration, or

Reformation?”, given by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet

for Bankers and Merchants of the City of London at the Mansion House, London. 16 June 2016

The Promise of FinTech

‘FinTech’ heralds the dawn of narrow banking and portfolio optimisation. It will

change the nature of money, shake the foundations of central banking and deliver nothing

less than a democratic revolution for all who use financial services.

Money and credit, the universal instruments of commerce, could not exist without

this most fundamental of financial technologies, which allows debits and credits to be

netted off; debt to circulate as currency; money to replace memory; and with it, trade to

expand exponentially.

The emergence of mobile telephony, the ubiquity of the internet, availability of high-

speed computing, advances in cryptography, and innovations in machine learning could

combine to enable rapid changes in finance – just as they have in other areas of the

economy.

The ledger, once stone, wood, or paper – and always centralised – is now digital and

may become distributed. FinTech has the potential to deliver more resilient financial

infrastructure, more effective trade and settlement, and new ways to encode, share and

analyse data. For the financial sector, these could offer shorter, speedier transaction chains;

greater capital efficiency; and stronger operational resilience. For consumers, they could

mean more choice; better-targeted services; and keener pricing. For everyone, FinTech

may deliver a more inclusive financial system, domestically and globally; with people

better connected, more informed and increasingly empowered.

The Potential impact of FinTech on financial and monetary stability

Already, FinTech is spurring new entrants including payments providers, peer-to-

peer lenders, robo-advisors, innovative trading platforms, and foreign exchange agents.

This could, with time, unbundle traditional banking models and deny banks their

traditional economies of scale and scope. The systemic consequences of FinTech are even

more complex. More diverse business models and alternative providers are positives for

financial stability.

By allowing better credit screening and less adverse selection, FinTech could

improve risk assessment, credit allocation, and capital efficiency. But if it encourages

herding on common information, trading positions could become more correlated. And if

switching costs in funding markets fall, liquidity risk could rise and systemic risks grow.

FinTech could also affect the conduct of monetary policy. Unbundled banking would

change the roles of bank capital and funding costs in the credit channel of monetary policy.

If FinTech enhances participation in financial markets, the wealth channel of monetary

policy could strengthen. More broadly, Big Data techniques could tell us about the state of

the economy more accurately and promptly. Forecast performance could improve, akin to

the forecast improvements that better measurement of atmospheric conditions has, over

time, delivered for meteorologists.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2016/speech914.pdf

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2016/speech914.pdf

5

CPTM



Recommendations and Proposals

Overall

1. Central Bank Governors will continue to share their experiences of Financial

Inclusion Initiatives with CFMM and their insights on the evolving functions of

Central Banks as a result of the impact of Digital Technology.

2. The CPTM Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking showed the need, at a National

Level, to adopt the CPTM Strategic Framework based on the interconnected

CPTM Inclusion Initiatives, namely National Visioning for Inclusive Security,

Financial Inclusion, Quality & Standards Inclusion, Science & Technology

Inclusion, Data & Statistics Inclusion and the Emerging Digital Technology

Landscape, supported by relevant National Smart Partnership Hubs and

Frameworks.

3. Central Banks will continue to engage with and research the potential advantages

provided by FinTech developments, including Blockchain and Distributed Ledger

Technology (DLT). However, Technology providers need to be aware that Central

Banks have a duty to minimise the risks involved for their citizens;

o Blockchain’s emergence as a New Digital Disrupter and the effects it has on

Financial Services need to be closely monitored, in particular regarding issues

related to risk, regulation and governance for Central Banks.

o In this context, De-Risking Strategies could be investigated further in future

interactions.

4. The connection and interaction between the CPTM Financial Inclusion Initiative and

the CPTM Quality & Standards Inclusion Initiative should be strengthened on the

issues of Digital Financial Services and the emerging Standards surrounding

Digital Technology, Digital Financial Services, Blockchain and DLT:

o National Standards Bodies (NSB’s), as members of ISO’s Developing

Countries (DEVCO) group, should consider working closely with ISO on the

development of the proposed new Standards for Blockchain, thus monitoring

developments for Central Bank Governors.

5. Further new interactions between the CPTM Financial Inclusion Initiative and the

new CPTM Smart Partners’ Inclusion Initiative on Data and Statistics, should

enhance the role of National Statistics Offices (NSO’s) for the best interests of the

people.

o There is a need for closer working relationships to be forged between Central

Banks and NSO’s especially considering the rapid penetration of society by

digital technology.

o Central Banks could reflect on the impact of new economic activities on

traditional statistics, with the potential to employ enhanced Data Science

methodologies to assist this process through the work of Data Centres.

o Data Visualisation can be used for increased statistical literacy and to provide a

better understanding of FinTech processes.

6

CPTM



CPTM Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking Participants – London, June 2016

Central Bank Governors: Professor Benno Ndulu, Governor, Bank of Tanzania, CPTM Companion;

Professor Emmanuel Tumusiime-Mutebile, Governor, Bank of Uganda CPTM Companion; Mr Majozi

V Sithole, Governor, Central Bank of Swaziland; Dr Retšelitsoe Adelaide Matlanyane, Executive

Director and Chairperson (Governor), Central Bank of Lesotho; Dr Patrick Ngugi Njoroge, Governor &

Chairman, Central Bank of Kenya; Dr Denny Kalyalya, Governor, Bank of Zambia; Dr Caleb Fundanga,

Executive Director, Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa

(MEFMI); Dr Waldemar Fernando de Sousa, Executive Director and Board Member, Bank of

Mozambique; Dr Grant Peter Kabango, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of Malawi

Special Guests: Professor Sir Charles Bean (former Deputy Governor, BoE), London School of

Economics and Political Science, UK; Professor David Hand OBE, Data Science Institute (Imperial

College London)

CPTM Smart Partners: Ambassador Godfrey Magwenzi, Ambassador of Zimbabwe to Italy, CPTM

Companion; Dr Albina Chuwa, Director General, National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania; Dr Adam

Mugume, Executive Director, Research and Policy, Bank of Uganda; Mrs Mpho Makhema, Vision 2016

Council Secretary, Botswana, CPTM Companion; Mr Silas Mosuhli, Director, Lesotho Smart Partnership

Hub, Lesotho; Mr Moses Zungu, Head of Smart Partnership Secretariat, Prime Minister’s Office,

Swaziland; Mr Nkundwe Moses Mwasaga, Lecturer, Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology, Tanzania;

Mr Shelton Kanyanda, OECD Statistics, France; Mr Chimwemwe Mlaviwa, Reserve Bank of Malawi;

Mr Jacob Mkandawire, Economist, Bank of Zambia; Mr Vijay Mauree, Digital Finance Service,

International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Switzerland; Dr Bronwyn Evans, CEO, Standards

Australia and Mr Varant Meguerditchian (video message); Mr Andreas Tsindos, Dr Rajiv Mathur and

Mr Oliver Oram, ChainVine, UK; Mr Kartik Natarajan, Applied Blockchain, Level 39, UK; Professor

Michael Mainelli, Z/Yen, UK; Dr Phil Godsiff, Centre for the Digital Economy, University of Surrey,

UK; Mr Carl Miller, Centre for Analyses of Social Media (CASM), DEMOS, UK; Ms Mary Eboka,

Ministry of Planning & Regional Development (MINEPAT), Cameroon; Dr Mohsin Ullah Khan, Zaheer

Science Foundation, India; Mr Tony Colman, UK; Dr Juliet Colman, UK; Mr Robert Smith, UK;

Dr Andrew Taussig, CPTM Director, UK; Lt General (Ret’d) Ihsan Shurdom, CPTM Director, Jordan;

Dr Mihaela Y Smith, Chief Executive, CPTM

Specific

6. The following activities and considerations should be acted upon:

o Sharing experiences of the evolving functions of Central Banks as a result of

the acceleration of the impact of digital technology;

o The strategic function of Central Banks in balancing and bridging consumer

needs and the solutions of FinTech providers for National Frameworks;

o Importance of Data, in particular Economic Statistics and the Impact of Digital

Technology such as Blockchain, and associated Standards, for Central Banks;

o De-risking strategies, a new dimension of Financial Inclusion, proposed by

Dr DeLisle Worrell, Governor of the Bank of Barbados;

o Underlining the importance of Financial Inclusion and Emerging Digital

Technology and associated Standards for the implementation of National

Visions.

o An Executive Brief for Commonwealth Heads of Government proposing a

Smart Partnership Dialogue will be produced by CPTM Members.

7

CPTM



Overview

A Strategy for Adaptive Flexibility Approaches

to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age

1. The 2016 CPTM Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking at the Smart Partners’ Hub

focused on the following issues:

The CPTM Financial Inclusion Initiative;

Financial Inclusion, Data and Statistics;

FinTech for Central Banking, including De-risking Strategies and the Importance of

Standards;

New Dimensions and Way Forward.

Why it Matters?

2. A number of recent publications and events have explored the role of Digital Financial Services

in Financial Inclusion processes. One example is The 2016 Brookings Financial and Digital

Inclusion Project Report: Advancing Equitable Financial Ecosystems, which explored the

need to establish measurable financial inclusion targets and outlined why this mattered:

“Central Banks, ministries of finance, ministries of communications, banks, non-bank financial

service providers, and mobile network operators have major roles in achieving greater financial

inclusion and should coordinate closely with respect to policy, regulatory, and technological

advances.(…) Among the SDGs closely connected to financial inclusion are objectives to: end

poverty; achieve gender equality; “promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth,

employment, and decent work for all” (a goal that is particularly germane to financial inclusion);

and reduce inequality within and among countries.(…) While there is no single path to facilitating

financial inclusion, engagement in multinational knowledge-sharing networks and investing in

digital financial services can help countries develop successful and sustainable approaches to

making progress towards inclusive finance (…) Quantifiable goals can drive country commitments

and policy changes with respect to financial inclusion”1

3. The G20, alongside the Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI) has also made this

a focal point of their recent work, notably in the G20 Principles for Innovative Financial

Inclusion2 The World Bank recently released a Global Findex Database Measuring Financial

Inclusion around the World, which gave a very good summary of global trends surrounding

Financial Inclusion. 3

Emerging Debates on the Impact of Distributed Ledger Technology and Blockchain

4. In line with all of this, one of the major focal points of the 2016 CPTM Central Bank

Governors’ Think Tanking at the Smart Partners’ Hub was the impact of FinTech and

Blockchain on Financial Inclusion. Since there has recently been a rapid increase in the attention

afforded to technological developments by financial institutions (both Central and Commercial

1 https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/fdip_20160816_project_report.pdf 2 http://www.gpfi.org/publications/g20-principles-innovative-financial-inclusion-executive-brief 3 http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/681361466184854434/2014-Global-Findex-Report-DKSV.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/fdip_20160816_project_report.pdf

http://www.gpfi.org/publications/g20-principles-innovative-financial-inclusion-executive-brief

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/681361466184854434/2014-Global-Findex-Report-DKSV.pdf

8

CPTM



Banks), this brief has looks closely at issues surrounding FinTech, for the benefit of Finance

Ministers across the Commonwealth. In particular, this brief contains an excellent introduction,

courtesy of Mr Mike Brookbanks of the University of Surrey, to Blockchain and Disruptive

Ledger Technology (DLT) as well as an analysis of the potential disruptive impact this could have

in the coming years.

5. Currently there is a lively debate on this topic amongst many financial experts and economists,

including Smart Partner and Chairman of Intelligence Capital Ltd, Professor Avinash Persaud.

“I see FinTech and Blockchain as part of the long progress of improvements in information

technology that will impact banking. However, it is customary for FinTech revolutionaries to

overstate their impact. Technology hubris is the seed of almost all financial booms and busts from

the advent of the railway, motor car, electrification, telephony, internet etc. Banking is part of the

information industry, but money is a social construct centred at government for a reason. Many of

the technology revolutionaries have little background in monetary theory – they will argue, just as

the dotcom revolutionaries did, that they have no need for monetary theory because they are

disrupting it all. However, it is governments who issue money – again for fundamental reasons

that cannot be replaced. Governments have the power of taxation, of determining what is legal

tender, as well as defining what is safe and acceptable in return for government-sanctioned

liquidity.

An example of this is the recent case of correspondent banking relationships. While technology

and private trust mechanisms should be improving the flow of money and remittances and

lowering its cost, banks and money wire services in developing countries, especially in small

states are rapidly losing all of their correspondent banking relationships making it impossible for

them to transfer money abroad. This is particularly so for the Caribbean where countries like

Belize have no correspondent banks. This recent trend is alarming and will have major adverse

consequences for financial inclusion. The reason is that the correspondent banks in the developed

countries fear that these countries in the developing countries will be placed on “unapproved and

sanction lists” for money laundering. The costs of being on these lists or being seen to have

flouted regulation has risen dramatically. In recent year’s over $300bn of fines have been paid by

bank shareholders. Because this process relates to who has political clout and not whether there is

indeed any real risks attached to the flows, and the costs of getting it wrong have become higher,

developed country banks have just closed down their risks and relationships. M-pensa would not

have succeeded if started today. The main solution to developing countries will not be found in

global private trust mechanisms dependent on government sanction lists, but forming alternative

networks, such as with Chinese banks hiding behind their greater political clout.

It is also interesting to note Thomas Philippon’s interesting work that suggests that despite all of

the technological advances in information technology since the early 1900s – the age of steam

trains – the average cost of financial intermediation to the non-financial sector has not fallen and

remains around 1.75%.4 Think your buying costs have gone down with all the “algotrading”–

check for all the new charges and costs elsewhere. This suggests that in finance they key lynchpin

4 Abstract of the FinTech Opportunity by Thomas Philippon: Financial services remain surprisingly expensive, which

explains the emergence of new entrants. The current regulatory approach is subject to significant political economy and

coordination costs, and therefore unlikely to deliver much structural change. FinTech can improve both financial stability

and access to services, but this requires significant changes in the focus of regulations.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2819862


9

CPTM



for the consumer is not technology, but how the financial system is organized and to whose benefit

which has more to do with regulation. Technology can play a powerful role in improving the

effectiveness of regulation, enabling regulators to support new forms of organisation of the

industry that would benefit consumers and once we have a sector more attuned to the benefits of

consumers, amplifying those benefits.

A useful analogy is renewable energy. Recent advances in solar technology will be transformative

for energy and the world, but this technological revolution would not have taken place if left to

energy entrepreneurs and was only possible, Telsa was only possible, through large fiscal

disincentives and incentives and in some cases direct regulation banning emissions. For the real

revolution to happen in finance, we need to set the right incentives first, otherwise it is

merely a fight over who gets the spoils, without real benefit to the consumer, masquerading

as a revolution to save us all.”

6. These concerns regarding the rate and manner in which Blockchain and DLT are affecting

everyday financial transactions were echoed by a number of Governors during the CPTM

Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking.

“If we, as Central Bankers, were conservative in our approach we wouldn’t be doing mobile

money. Adaptive flexibility isn’t a joke to us, we are doing a lot. But we want to see how things

progress. We don’t want to overregulate these developments before they have time to blossom, but

you do have to assess how much risk you are willing to go with. Each CPTM Central Bank

Governors’ Think Tanking meeting takes us closer to appreciating what technology can do.

There’s no better way than putting in a serious fight before jumping on board. We don’t gamble.

We seek assurance, and get a good sense of what works.

(…) One bit of clarity that was important is that blockchain is a method rather than a

solution. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As long as we remember there is some

flexibility here, we will be in the right frame of mind.” (Governor of the Bank of Tanzania)

“We don’t want to appear like Luddites, but we aren’t going to suddenly jump into a large project.

We want to see a product that does the basic transfer from A to B and then we can go from there.

Our worries around security are very high, understandably.

(…) Frankly, we have been thinking about this issue for some time, but we ask for patience. We

have our own process. We want technology and we know that technology helps us. But we have

concerns that can’t be blown away.” (Governor of the Central Bank of Kenya)

The Bank of England holds similar feelings regarding Blockchain and DLT developments. While

stressing that the Bank is ‘technologically agnostic’, considering the stability of the system as a

whole its priority, it created a FinTech Accelerator unit in 2016 to explore possible uses for the

technology.5

5 For more on the FinTech Accelerator, see: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2016/914.aspx

and: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Documents/fintech/fintechpocdlt.pdf and

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Pages/fintech/default.aspx

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2016/914.aspx

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Documents/fintech/fintechpocdlt.pdf


10

CPTM



Mitigating Systemic Risk

7. Understandably the Central Bank Governors were keen to minimise the systemic risk that can

be triggered by potentially revolutionary developments in Financial Technology. The technology

is appealing, but at the same time the risks must not be ignored. In order to truly understand what

is involved it is important to be familiar with the wider context of Systemic Risk. Willke, Becker

and Rostasy’s book Systemic Risk: The Myth of Rational Finance and the Crisis of Democracy

provides an excellent introduction to the topic.6

8. With this in mind, it is useful to note recent work on the concept of De-risking, used to protect

banks and financial institutions from fraud and money laundering. However, as Dr DeLisle

Worrell, Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados, has pointed out, this can have dramatic

effects on the individual customers and clients of banks employing de-risking strategies.7

Statistics, Data and Standards in the Digital Age

9. Standards are another key element for mitigating the risks mentioned above and to help

ensure that cutting-edge Financial Technology has a positive effect on Financial Inclusion.

The CPTM Smart Partnership Approach to Financial Inclusion has long emphasised the need

for cooperative interaction between Central Banks and National Standards Bodies. By

working together, they can develop the necessary Standards for FinTech. Data, based on a new

approach to Statistics and Data Visualisation, is also crucial to this process. CPTM’s

Technology and Innovation Inclusion Initiative also plays a key role in this process, including

research on the impact of Supercomputers on Data Infrastructures to increase Financial

Inclusion.8 When taken together, the above creates an Adaptive Flexibility Approach to

Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age.

6 https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7332823972 7 For more, see for example Governor Reports on De-risking at Financial Stability Board Meeting

http://www.centralbank.org.bb/Portals/0/Governor%20Worrell%20Reports%20on%20De-

risking%20at%20FSB%20Meeting.pdf 8The Emerging Digital Landscape and Supercomputing Dr Nkundwe Moses Mawasaga, Dar es Salaam Institute of

Technology https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7457390525?_ga=1.57518307.810161049.1463494416

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7332823972

http://www.centralbank.org.bb/Portals/0/Governor%20Worrell%20Reports%20on%20De-risking%20at%20FSB%20Meeting.pdf

http://www.centralbank.org.bb/Portals/0/Governor%20Worrell%20Reports%20on%20De-risking%20at%20FSB%20Meeting.pdf

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7457390525?_ga=1.57518307.810161049.1463494416

11

CPTM



Part I - Financial Inclusion and Interoperability

Sharing Experiences: National Contexts of Financial Inclusion9

10. The 2016 Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking marked a significant turning point in the

history of the Smart Partnership Movement and CPTM as a whole by providing new impetus for

the interaction between the CPTM Smart Partners’ Inclusion Initiatives. The Think Tanking

demonstrated the need for the promotion of active interconnection between the Inclusion

Initiatives (see Annex III for more information on the CPTM Strategic Framework of Inclusion

Initiatives) and their strategic value in the context of achieving National Visions. The timing

of the event could not have been better, with the issues of FinTech and Blockchain really

capturing the imagination of the global financial sector (e.g. Bank of International Settlement

(BIS)) and beyond, and Blockchain technology being applied for governance and other uses.

(Dr Mihaela Smith, CPTM CEO and Joint Dialogue Convener)

11. “At the 2015 CPTM Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking, we looked closely at the

influence of mobile money and the importance of being able to access and use it, because access

without use is not useful. Interoperability is important for this, so we should bear that in mind.

Interoperability is the frontier at the moment and a key concern of ours. (Our discussions this year)

could be a broader update (on Financial Inclusion initiatives in each of our respective countries),

before becoming more specific as we progress the discussions later on.” (Governor of the Bank

of Tanzania)

12. Tanzania - Access to mobile money in Tanzania now at ~80%. Usage of mobile money is

at 67%, 17.2 million adults use it once every 30 days (which is the definition of ‘active

usage’). Vodacom and Airtel are both very active. We have five mobile network operators

(hereafter MNOs) in Tanzania, so it’s very competitive in Tanzania these days.

Mobile wallet (cash in/cash out) interoperability is also very widespread. Person-to-person (P2P)

transactions across networks are now also possible, whereas before all sorts of charges were

involved in order to cross networks. It can now be done directly, cutting the transaction time and

the cost of using an agent to cash out and send across. We in Tanzania are among the first ones to

have achieved this, I believe. Rwanda are also doing this, I believe. In some countries there is a

very dominant player, which makes interoperability less likely as they have a near monopoly on

the customers. They are understandably keen to maintain this dominance. (Governor of the Bank

of Tanzania)

13. Kenya - Kenya has certain historical specificities. We were the first to start with mobile

payments. Now we have first-mover problems or challenges. We need to clean up an untidy

field. Those who have come after us have benefited from our experience though I don’t think that

we would do anything different if we had to do it all again. We have benefited from Financial

Inclusion – indeed, the benefits are humungous.

The Governor of Tanzania set out interoperability very well. Safaricom had a lot of agents out

there and they want to keep it that way rather than allowing others to piggy back on their

work. This is understandable. However, they don’t necessarily have the best technology but they

9 Extracts from the 2016 CPTM Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking at the Hub, full document ‘CPTM Highlights

& Insights on Adaptive Flexibility Approaches to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age’:



12

CPTM



have the control. Superior technology does not always win out (e.g. Betamax vs VHS). We have

to look to where we will be in 5 or 10 years, with benefits coming to the population using the

services. We have to break the dominance of institutions and avoid monopolies. Negotiation is

crucial, of course. These negotiations are long, there is no shortcut. You may wish to read

Clausewitz’ ‘On War’ for insights on how to negotiate with big players.

National Payments law is relevant, but these laws need to be developed progressively. We

want to avoid laws that “make a mess”. The big players see the need for interoperability but

getting agreement is challenging. We have a solution that is about to be launched. Maybe

Tanzania is not entirely ahead on this one! They remain at the cutting edge of technology. We

have a bit of a sibling rivalry with them. We have a system similar to SWIFT coming, which will

facilitate the partnership of operators. Greater interoperability will bring the benefits of technology

to the customer. Members, i.e. banks, will maintain the SWIFT technology. Other service

providers can be Aggregators exist but there is still competition, and technology is being advanced

way beyond what banks can develop.

There are some issues which are barriers to new technologies, such as cost. On the non-exclusivity

of agents, we are working on telephone towers, which is a big thing. This would allow multiple

providers to use them, you can think of the towers as being like a kiosk. This approach is not

necessarily a solution forever, but for the next 10-15 years.

Security is our number one concern as bankers. Whatever solution we come up with has to be safe,

not just cutting edge. Consumer protection needs to be paramount in our work. Consumers are not

always that knowledgeable and so we need to provide the security. Some people have accounts but

can’t read, they have to rely on the honesty of others. There is a lot of potential for fraud in these

cases. The volume of fraud is not large but nuisance cost can be considerable.

In Kenya we have the example of a local fruit seller borrowing the money in the morning. While

waiting for the lights to change she can apply and receive the loan before setting off, therefore

having near instant service and access to working capital. This is a huge development for socio-

economic movement. This also generates information about herself, giving her a credit rating and

opening possibility of future larger loans.

Our view is that we are moving to Financial Inclusion 2.0. We are experiencing diminishing

returns so we need to change it up a bit. The pressure is on society to provide services for the

lowest segment of our population. This democratising process needs to continue and accelerate.

The only limiting factor is our innovation. (Governor of the Central Bank of Kenya)

14. Lesotho - In Lesotho the experience of mobile money is nowhere near the two giants who

have spoken. We are just introducing it as part of a broader FI agenda. Our financial sector is

much less developed. We started at a good time, when we needed to provide competition for the

banking sector in our countries. Mobile money is especially important in our mountainous

land, where banks were unwilling to travel across the country. We didn’t have legal

structures in place but the telcos came and did their work. People are now using mobile

money in even the most remote parts of country.

We are still at a basic stage, transferring cash person-to-person (P2P) and for paying services and

goods. We have only four commercial banks, and three of these are big South African banks who

13

CPTM



are unwilling to go into the mountains to serve people there. Therefore, technology has come at a

good time.

Lesotho is also very dependent on remittances, so we are aiming to make this possible for

Basotho people working in South Africa. Progress is being made and the next step is

interoperability between the two providers in Lesotho, but also between MNOs and banking

institutions. Technology is working for us and has helped bring phenomenal transformation in

how people view the banking and the financial sector.

Loans and savings are still to come. However, we are now number one for using their balance

to buy airtime (normal), but you can now also transform airtime back into cash, which is

unusual! We have achieved much but have a long road ahead of us as well. Consumer

education and literacy is key. Many people don’t yet understand the implication of the contracts

they are signing. Financial education will be integrated into the curriculum at primary schools

from next year. Consumer protection needs to be increased as well. The influence of South

Africa’s advanced market is not entirely beneficial. They have advanced dubious players

who cross our porous borders and prey on our less sophisticated consumers. SA laws are not

the same as in Lesotho, so signing with SA providers can leave them very vulnerable.

Cybersecurity is a concern of ours as well. We want to digitise and so forth but we are

concerned by the security implications of this. We have used development partners a lot to

overcome our shortcoming in technological knowledge. One of the other things that keeps me

awake at night is looking into what can be done to prevent people from falling into debt. We have

put in place the Credit Reference Bureau, which is a registry for credit rating information. Many

of our partners are very much in synch with us in this regard. Our staff are not necessarily familiar

with payment systems, we need to work in partnership to rectify this. We are bringing in partners

such as the World Bank/IMF to produce an implementation strategy/plan.

Legislation needs to be modified to accommodate debts. Our Central Bank is in a constant state of

catch-up with what consumers are doing. The biggest problem in the South, as elsewhere, is

pyramid schemes. We are consolidating a number of sectors and strengthening regulation to help

us catch up with others. (Executive Director of the Central Bank of Lesotho)

15. Zambia - Leapfrogging is certainly useful for us in Zambia. We are early in our Internet life

and have been a bit slow to use the available platforms, but we are progressing. In 2002-3 we had

a financial sector assessment by World Bank and IMF, to look at shortcomings, such as outdated

laws, and potential solutions to these shortcomings. A financial sector working plan was

developed in 2004 to help these issues, through which we established a baseline, and this plan

continued for five years. In 2009, access was still only 6-7%.

We then went into phase 2. Consumer Education is a really important aspect; democratisation of

financial services is a very important goal, and laws are now being modernised post-2009. We

established a non-profit clearing house, with surpluses ploughed back into system. A national

SWIFT (switch) system has been established, and we said up front that institutions need to be

working together. We remind them of this constantly. Whatever systems emerge must be able

to talk to one another.

One other challenge is consumers not repaying debts, but we are dealing with this. We have also

established a credit reference system. Procurement issues have also occurred as well, and in

14

CPTM



addition there have been further challenges as a result of the financial crisis, with few people

able to access services due to fears over lending. Relevant legislative proposals have gone

before Parliament but several are stuck there.

Zambia has three MNOs, with a fourth coming. These MNOs have been brought in, with

the regulator on board. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) have been used and we

are really trying to work together. They jealously guard their platforms and are reluctant to

work together at times. While MOUs are not binding, they help to clarify what is expected of the

signatories. We convinced the Government to use an e-voucher system for inputs for agriculture.

This lowered transaction costs and reduced exclusion rates for many people, although there have

been negative reactions from those now left out of the process.

Financial services and big retail outlets such as Shoprite are also now able to provide money

transfers for people. Airtime is also convertible into money, like in Lesotho. Cardless services

using the mobile enables you to withdraw money from cash machines without a card. We are

encouraging the use of card over cash for security reasons. Support from our colleagues is also

invaluable. Some people think we’re moving too fast, but our colleagues with experience and

know-how enable us to avoid the mistakes they made in the process. (Governor of the Bank of

Zambia)

16. Uganda - Financial Inclusion is going well for us, although at a slower rate than our

neighbours. We have slowly developed a number of services, including Islamic banking. We have

done similar work to Kenya, although every mobile transaction in Uganda is taxed unlike in

Kenya. This hinders transactions. The roles of the various institutions have also been clarified, and

we are also attempting to bring the key players under one umbrella.

Financial education is also very important to us. The financial committee is working hard on

financial education and awareness across the country. Interoperability is an issue as we have

a dominant player who does not want to alter how it works. They say: “You gave us a

licence. Who are you to now start telling me what to do?” Negotiations have begun to change

this. Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda have also developed an East Africa Payment System to

facilitate movements across the borders, and cross-border transactions are now beginning.

(Governor of the Bank of Uganda)

17. Malawi - A number of initiatives in Malawi have been championed. We have a number of

new regulations in place, and we started by enhancing financial rules and regulations to enable

mobile money, for example. We have a national SWITCH for interoperability, and all financial

institutions have to disclose their charges. Resistance exists but we are determined. We also

have introduced a mobile securities register to assist with FI for the ‘rural masses’. A

consumer protection initiative has also been introduced to create an avenue for people to complain

and seek help in financial inclusion matters.

A Financial Inclusion strategy agenda is being developed by the Central Bank. There are

also tax benefits/breaks for people importing ATMs and other such items that facilitate FI.

We are now at 40+% of people in the financial system, compared with 20% previously.

Financial literacy is also on curriculum. We used to do a full week but it was very expensive,

although effective. We rely now on radio and TV to help spread the information related to this.

(Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of Malawi)

15

CPTM



Part II - Strategic Interdependencies for Financial Inclusion: Statistics, Data &

Standards in a Digital Landscape

Economic Statistics for Central Bank Governors An intervention on Special Insights on National Statistics from Professor Sir Charles Bean,

former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and author of The Independent Review of UK

Economic Statistics

18. Digital developments raise questions regarding GDP and GDP growth rates, and by extension

the nature of conventional statistics. Conventional statistics need to be expanded to properly

measure digital products. Digital products have zero, or near zero, marginal costs. These goods

can be consumed by all. If I use it, you can still also use it, unlike a sandwich, say. How do they

make money though? Sometimes they are financed by selling consumer information, and a

monopoly makes this far more valuable. Are these services/products picked up by traditional

statistics or monitors such as GDP?

We are seeing disintermediation for market activities into the household sector. For

example, travel agents are being sidelined by products such as Airbnb and online providers.

You don’t need to be an expert to book a room. Travel guides have also been put aside for

smartphone’s free services. This is registered as a fall in activity on national accounts, when really

the consumer is benefiting.

19. The Internet and digital developments have made it possible for people to utilise skills and

harness assets, for example through Uber or Airbnb. The household production and market

production boundary is blurred - people can be both consumers and producers. Yet home

production is normally ignored in compiling statistics. As Paul Samuelson observed: “If a man

marries his housekeeper, GDP falls.” This feeds into the wider conversation about why

productivity growth in big industrial economies has fallen [Hub note: traditional

methodologies for estimating GDP do not account for many of the transactions that take place

within the ‘sharing/collaborative economy’. Therefore, the current inability to capture such

economic activities within traditional GDP figures may account, albeit only marginally, for what

economists refer to as the ‘productivity puzzle’ – the gap between a country’s theoretical capacity

to produce, and its actual sub-capacity production level. (See Chapter 3 in “The Independent

Review of UK Economic Statistics”10).

20. We also have difficulties foreseeing the future, and there is doubt as to whether technological

change has been widely adopted across all sections of society. Another reason it is hard to capture

such income generation is that households may occasionally not declare this income… Official

statistics are being challenged by digital developments. So one question would be, are

conventional indicators such as GDP still relevant, and do they need redefining? This is possibly

too extreme. It is better to think about how existing statistics are being distorted by these new

factors.

10https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507081/2904936_Bean_Review_Web_Acc

essible.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507081/2904936_Bean_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507081/2904936_Bean_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf

16

CPTM



21. The exploitation of Big Data is a key new development. The digital economy means that a

huge amount of information is now available both in the public and private sector, for example

scanner data from supermarkets on what consumers purchase, when and how. This is highly

useful to statisticians, of course, but how best to do so? Stratification and disaggregation come

into play. The Bank of England has a pretty poor view on transactions, despite being at the heart

of one of the world’s financial capitals. We need to be using this vast flow of information better.

The UK is behind Scandinavia, Holland and Canada on using a lot of this information. We rely

on surveys and this is not enough; we cannot rely on surveys alone. 1.5 million paper forms

processed a year is hugely inefficient. The legal framework in the UK is not very conducive to

accessing this data. Data holders don’t have any obligation to hand over the data. Civil servants

are also naturally cautious and don’t want to release data out of fears of it being leaked. One needs

to have the correct skills and understanding to get an accurate picture from the data, as well as

using it creatively. Access is not enough; you need to be able to process it. There is a huge

amount of potential out there.

22. What about private sector information and data? One needs to be wary about using this

information for regular statistics, as you can’t always rely on it being available. One-off studies

can be done with this, but you need to be careful. How do we get hold of this data? Here, we think

friendly persuasion is best. One could create a legal right of access, but businesses are not keen on

being told to hand over their data and information. It is therefore wise to use whatever powers the

Government might have with discretion. (…) It’s not that we necessarily want to redefine

statistics, but rather to consider how they are being distorted by new developments. We are

not very good at imagining the future, so it is hard to say what the next big developments will be.

Data ownership and data security are indeed huge issues.

Data Science and Central Banks as Data Users An intervention on Data Science from Professor David Hand, Data Science Institute Imperial

College London

23. I would like to make three general points regarding Data:

Point one is speed of movement. Things are moving fast with data science and banking. But one

mistake is that people think data science has plateaued. Computer infrastructure is still

improving, so in fact we are on the foothills of a mountain, rather than a plateau.

The second point is the issue of data quality, and this is very important to what we’re talking

about. It can be important at a low level, such as problems with missing datasets, badly recorded

data, missing data, and so on – but at least these are “known unknowns”, to paraphrase Donald

Rumsfeld. But at the higher level, you can have distorted samples, and the significance of this is

that machine learning, for example, can go wrong. People who work in data mining and machine

learning are not desensitised to this.

The third point relates to ethical issues on data, such as privacy, confidentiality, security, and

the question of ownership – does an individual own their data?

24. I’ve spent a long time working in the private sector advising on whether credit cards should be

given to customers, etc. Credit scoring models are now highly developed and very good. In retail,

you have millions of customers – it’s a great playground for a statistician. The world of big data is

not new.

17

CPTM



Earlier we mentioned the emergence of new business models and products that can be built on

new data technologies. Within this context scientists refer to the ‘Three Vs.’

The first V is Volume, for example how many customers there are, how many

transactions, and so on.

The second V is Variety; modern datasets now come in the forms of images and words,

as well as traditional forms. These modern datasets are sometimes called ‘unstructured

datasets’.

The third V is Velocity; data just keeps on coming and coming – there are around a

billion transactions a year per bank. Statisticians used to get datasets and spend three

months analysing them before coming up with an answer. But with anti-corruption

efforts, for example, the answer has to come now, not in three months.

There could also be a fourth V, which is veracity. How good is the data, and how trustworthy is

it for helping you answer your question? I believe the term ‘Big Data’ is inaccurate. My guess is

that most discoveries will be made using small datasets – taking a big dataset and chopping it up!

The Role of National Statistics and the Benefits for Central Banks

25. In National Statistics Offices [hereafter NSOs], we have to change the way we do things. We

concentrate more on data generation. NSOs divert attention to provide services for users. Who is

poor, for example? Normally, data is for evidence-based planning. After implementing a plan, you

need to show what you have achieved. Governors want to see that financial inclusion efforts are

working, and the economy is working. Mobile data – is this really being used? What is the role of

NSOs? There is a paradigm shift from using traditional sources of data to modern sources. Now,

we measure the economy with more data, using more data sources. This is what the data

revolution is. But do the NSOs have the capacity for this?

26. The SDGs are saying ‘leave nobody behind, leverage technology’. Is the same happening

with NSOs? Embracing rather than resisting technology? Of course, there are limitations;

GDP measurements have a lot of limitations, for example. Financial Services measuring is very

difficult, it’s not like manufacturing. NSOs can’t work in isolation; we need to work with

stakeholders, but what about the misuse of statistics? Measurement is important, we need

standards and principles. In Tanzania, we have a National Statistics Act – one can’t just provide

incorrect facts. We have to adhere to the legal framework before you say anything. Even in the

open data arena, this is important. There is still a need to hold people accountable.

27. The next issue is technology and innovations. In our NSO we are saying that the data

revolution is our saviour – it will fill gaps in our knowledge. But we need to ensure we are using

technologies that will cut down costs. We are now heading towards a paperless world. In

Tanzania, we are trying to come up with an e-population system. This will be administered from

house to house. We’ll be able to capture transfers of money. Once we have this, the Governor will

be able to know who is benefitting from financial services, and the Minister for Education will

know about truancy. We think we will be able to publish data on a monthly basis rather than

quarterly, if the cost can be lowered.

Another issue is that of the financial crisis of 2008. No single country had data that was able to

predict this. In 2014, we said that Big Data will assist policy makers to capture what is happening,

18

CPTM



so capacity-building is important for this. (Dr Albina Chuwa, Tanzania National Bureau of

Statistics)

28. There is a saying that “behind disaggregated data, there is a person.” If we delete some

data, we are in effect deleting a person. Somehow, there has been collaboration between NSOs

and central banks in some areas. But there still needs to be more collaboration with Ministries

of Finance, Central Banks and NSOs. FinScope surveys suggest that NSDSs [National

Strategies for the Development of Statistics] need to be developed. (Mr Shelton Kanyanda,

OECD, Paris 21)

29. Also, there is a problem of prioritisation in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals

– countries are overwhelmed by the SGDs. So we need to prioritise – what do we want to achieve

in the next 5 years? A month ago, we had a workshop on sub-national statistics systems. We need

to work with sectors on the ground, for example with minister of health, mobile phone

networks and so on, to get them integrated into the statistics framework. With the current

inconsistent approach, we don’t generate the knowledge that we need. Looking at Charlie Bean’s

report and the issue of technology, most NSOs are looking to use technology. In our 2010 census,

a good number of NSOs used scanning, but the data collection was manned. So in 2020, we are

hoping to have tablets for data collection, and therefore you don’t need scanning – it’s a

direct feed. But econ statistics aren’t using technology, either because they are in different

formats, or other reasons. So this is becoming a challenge. How can we help institutions move

towards technology?

30. Also on the issue of GDP, this figure is not accurate because things such as military costs are

not accessible to NSOs. Other NSOs may do it, but this means there is therefore a lack of

consistency across countries by which to compare progress towards SDG indicators.

At the March 2015 SDG meeting, 213 indicators were established. Every country was talking

about national ownership and the need for a clear indicator framework. With 169 targets, there are

some targets that link with others, and there are some indicators that link with others. The 213

indicators were classified into groups: where methodology is known and metadata is available,

and where methodology not well known and work needs to be done. The World Bank is helping

with this. These are grey indicators – goals 15 and 17, in particular [#15: sustainably manage

forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss. #17:

revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.]

Now this is about integrating, for example, natural resources into GDP. What we want to see is if

Governors will continue to put money into statistics. Luckily for Tanzania, Benno is a champion

of our NSO. So you find a lot of politics, but essentially the main driver is the country itself, and

the need to get people on-board in the country. (Dr Chuwa)

19

CPTM



Moving Forward within a new CPTM Inclusion Initiative

involving National Statistics Offices

We should promote bottom-up approaches in the aggregation of data, and we should

promote top-down approaches in the disaggregation of data. This is how we are going

to find the value of data;

Data visualisation should be encouraged, as that is the methods that enables the

ordinary citizen or individuals to understand the meaning of available statistics. We

should encourage the presentation of data and statistics in a way that is understandable

to ordinary people – the “re-humanising of data and statistics”;

We should avoid a mismatch of statistics between government entities, which cause

data inconsistencies;

For statistics to be used within government in a consistent manner, we should

encourage greater interconnectivity across government entities;

For the purpose of accurate and timely data provision, the independence of National

Statistics Offices should be enshrined within an enforceable legal framework;

In pursuing a development agenda, there should be proactive use of data in the process

of creating development roadmaps;

Countries should create baseline data in order to improve the usage of data;

There should be an emphasis on the usefulness of statistics at the national level;

There should be new entities included in the national statistics framework, for example

a Parliamentary Committee on Statistics that can assist the process of improving the

utilisation of statistics.

Standards, FinTech and Emerging ISO Standards for Blockchain Technology

31. Central Banking is now more and more dependent on Quality and Standards related to

Financial Services, National Statistics and new FinTech developments. Alan Bryden, former

Secretary-General of the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and Joint Convener of the

CPTM Quality & Standards Inclusion Initiative, wanted to remind you about the strategic value of

National Standards Bureaus for the Financial Inclusion sector, particularly in relation to the

following three current developments:

The development of the ISO 12812 series on mobile financial services

The soon to be finalized ISO 37001 standard on anti-bribery management systems

The proposal by Standards Australia currently under discussion to create an ISO TC on

blockchain standards

ISO/TC 68 has published to date 51 International Standards addressing challenges in the field of

interoperability, straight-through processing (STP), security of financial messaging and

transactions, including cryptogrammic key management practices. The PIN code concept (ISO

9564 series), the IBAN code (ISO 13616), the BIC code (ISO 9362), the currency codes (ISO

4217), the ISIN code (ISO 6166) and the most recent and the fast growing ISO 20022 (universal

messaging scheme for the financial industry) are emblematic examples. ISO 17442 (Legal Entity

20

CPTM



Identifier (LEI) code) is one recent example of an ISO standard of particular relevance to Central

Banks.

32. Smart Partner Daniele Gerundino, Director of Research and Education at the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO), added that ISO is actually developing a standard – ISO

37001 – for anti-bribery management systems, which should be published later this year. The

experience of ISO/TC 68, the LEI (Legal Entity Identifier) standard is particularly interesting and

important, as an exemplary case of cooperation between standardizers and regulators, in a field

(financial services) where diffidence and misunderstandings have not been uncommon.”

“Just consider that the two communities use the word “standard” in a rather different way. For

example, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) defines "standards" as something that "set out what

are widely accepted as good principles, practices, or guidelines in a given area". The FSB has

identified, inter alia, a list of “Key Standards for Sound Financial Systems" which cover areas

such as: Financial Regulation and Supervision, Macroeconomic Policy and Data Transparency,

Institutional and Market Infrastructure. Something very different from the “standards” published

by ISO – consensus-based documents of a voluntary nature!”

33. Over the past two years, the British Standards Institution (BSI) have been heavily involved

with both our Quality & Standards, and Financial Inclusion, Initiatives, through regular updates on

FinTech and blockchain technology, for example the newly-published PAS 212: Automatic

Resource Discovery for the Internet of Things – A Specification, which was jointly

published/launched at the June 2016 Hypercat Summit.

34. Since Central Banks worldwide have recently been focusing on understanding the application

of blockchain technology, CPTM, on behalf of the Quality & Standards Inclusion Initiative,

approached Standards Australia in relation to their announced intention to lead, under the auspices

of ISO, a new field of technical activity on ‘Blockchain and Electronic Distributed Ledger

Technology’, with a view to producing a standard for these technologies in the future.

35. Standards Australia’s CEO, Dr Bronwyn Evans, forwarded a dedicated Message for CPTM’s

Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking and for the CPTM Quality & Standards Inclusion

Initiative, inviting them to follow closely these developments, and participate in the making of this

standard. This is an opportunity for developing countries to be standard makers, not standard

takers. The transcript of the message follows below.

“On behalf of Standards Australia I would like to thank the Commonwealth Partnership for

Technology Management and Chief Executive Dr Mihaela Smith for the opportunity to

deliver this video message on Standards Australia’s Blockchain standards initiative.

Today, Blockchain technology represents one of the big opportunities for asset movement

and transaction efficiencies. Globally, the interest in blockchain is increasing with both

governments and industry exploring means to adopt and use blockchain systems. Blockchain

is a digital platform that records and verifies transactions in a public and secure manner.

This decentralised, cryptography-based solution has the potential to redefine transactions by

removing the need for intermediaries

Whilst the technology is still an emerging one, its applications can already be foreseen

across the financial services sector; consumer products and services; health; government;

21

CPTM



minerals and precious stones; real estate; internet of things; and business - and our industry

as well – technical publishing.

In March 2016, Australian Treasurer Scott Morrison published an opinion on how fintech

will enable the successful transition of the Australian economy. Referring to the role of

blockchain technology, Treasurer Morrison wrote: “The frictionless operation of fintech

innovations such as blockchain and digital currencies are generating new value streams not

just in financial services but across the economy.”

In light of strong government and industry interest, Standards Australia has already

consulted with the Reserve Bank of Australia as well as a number of other key financial

regulators including the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian

Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Treasury and the Commonwealth Department of

Industry Innovation and Science. Our discussions with these key agencies have focussed on

the role of international blockchain standards in complementing regulation to support a

changing economy. As with any emerging technology, the freedom for blockchain

developers to be innovative and for vendors to be competitive, is critical! And Standards are

an appropriate element of the innovation ecosystem.

For this reason Standards Australia recently submitted a proposal for the International

Organization for Standardization - ISO - to consider developing standards to support

blockchain technology. This proposal for a New Field of Technical Activity at ISO seeks to

support both innovation and competition. Blockchain standards would potentially cover

topics including interoperability, terminology, privacy, security and auditing.

Together with regulation, these standards have a critical role to play in establishing market

confidence to support the roll out of blockchain technology. The proposal as well as a

Standards Australia information sheet on the applications of blockchain technology are

available to you through the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management

secretariat.

You may ask why ISO should be interested in blockchain technology. ISO is one of three

International Standards development organisations. It is an independent, non-governmental

international organisation with a membership of 161 national standards bodies. Critically, at

ISO every member nation has an equal opportunity to participate and contribute to

developing blockchain standards.

Through this model of inclusion, ISO brings together experts to share knowledge and

develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards. The ISO

‘Blockchain and electronic distributed ledger technologies’ proposal is currently in a period

of consultation where all 161 members of the ISO are considering the merits of the proposal

and whether they are in a position to support and participate in the work if it is approved.

As stakeholders of blockchain technology, each of you has an opportunity to work with the

National Standards Bodies in your respective countries and lend your support to the ISO

Blockchain standards initiative. Your interest and support for the proposal through your

22

CPTM



National Standards Body will be a critical component in the ISO’s assessment and decision

on the blockchain standard proposal which is expected in July 2016.

We have passed on further information regarding the blockchain standards initiative as well

as Standards Australia contact details to the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology

Management secretariat, so contact us if you’d like to find out more.

Conclusion - With so much happening around blockchain there is a lot to be excited about.

But let me be clear there is still much to do for the ISO. We understand that the work we do,

and indeed all National Standards Bodies, is critical to improving global efficiencies and we

are committed to playing our part in establishing market confidence for blockchain

technology. At the same time, our blockchain standards initiative will only be more effective

and impactful with your participation. We hope that you will bring your knowledge,

influence and capabilities to our international blockchain standards initiative. Thank you.”

(Dr Bronwyn Evans, CEO Standards Australia )

36. This is a most urgent area. Without standards we are groping around in the dark.

Blockchain is everywhere and there is a lot of potentially, but not much understanding. We

have to be careful to really understand what we are dealing with and how it can be applied in

different contexts. Security is a great concern. Technology can’t be the only thing, no one wants

to get stuck as the first mover and then be overtaken by better technology. The technology

should be upgradeable. (Governor of the Central Bank of Kenya)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h8lq9954kt7hgyb/StandardsAus-blockchain-message.mp4.zip?dl=0


23

CPTM



Part III - Special Focus on Blockchain:

A New Digital Disrupter and the effect on Financial Services

37. Following the 2016 CPTM Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking, there was a great

deal of interest in Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). In order to help clarify

a number of questions surrounding Blockchain and DLT, CPTM have worked closely with

Mr Mike Brookbanks, FBCS, FIET, CENG, Visiting Fellow Surrey Centre for the Digital

Economy, University of Surrey11, on the following piece covering the key issues of:

What is Blockchain?

What can Blockchain do? What are the problems?

Risk, Regulation and Governance;

Systemic Risk;

Standards (Technical and Legal) and Governance of Blockchain

Know Your Client (KYC);

What is the role of Central Banks and Regulators?

What is Blockchain?

38. Over the past seven years, Blockchain and DLT, in numerous forms including Bitcoin, have

acted as a new disrupter to Financial Services. These in turn have an impact on the Central

Bankers in terms of risk and associated benefits. This brief considers the impact of the Blockchain

environments and technology on Financial Services and related Institutions, as well as the

business value and systemic and operational risk changes this may generate. The brief will

highlight the areas that the Central Banks should consider as these Financial Institutions drive

the implementation of Blockchain environments/technology over the next few years, using

permissioned Blockchain as a new financial market infrastructure. (For Definitions of key

terms please see Annex I)

Central Banks have developed in different ways and there are a number of varying roles built up

from their origins. The Central Banks are primarily an agency for monetary policy. They have

important financial stability functions, driving financial momentum, and these become more

prominent during times of financial turmoil or major change. The structure of these roles, the

responsibilities given, and the range of other functions and objectives allocated vary between

countries12. Central Banks will also provide a mix of banking supervision functions to oversee

banks (through required balance sheet ratios and other directives) and underpinning

payment/settlement system. In most countries they also control, drive, or influence the regulatory

policy locally and internationally; for example, providing links to the Bank of International

Settlement (BIS), the Prudential Standards Authority and a number of Financial Services

Regulatory bodies.

11 Mike Brookbanks is a Visiting Fellow with the Centre for the Digital Economy based at the University of Surrey. He

has 26 years’ experience of developing, leading and delivering predominately Business, IT Re-engineering and IT Service

Delivery Transformation engagements. The majority of his experience has been spent advising clients across the Financial

Services sector; although he has recent experience in the Public Sector (Central Government, Education, Local Government

and Health); whilst working with IBM.

Mike is a Fellow of Institute of Engineering and of the British Computing Society. Mike is published, having co-authored a

book on Operational Risk, and has presented at conferences in the UK on IT Optimisation, Operational Risk, IT Service

Management and Cloud Sourcing; and has had a number of patents published. Contact: [email protected] 12. For more info on the roles and objectives of modern Central Banks see http://www.bis.org/publ/othp04_2.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.bis.org/publ/othp04_2.pdf

24

CPTM



What can Blockchain do? What are the problems?

39. Currently Financial Institutions are realizing that Blockchain and DLT represents a powerful

combination of financial and technological innovation and a potent disrupter that will change

today's financial world and could make huge swathes of the current industry redundant.

Blockchain and DLT is a unique combination of protocols and technologies, evolving rapidly

along divergent paths. It potentially has the transformative ability to provide a 'data backbone' or

information layer for many financial applications13 Blockchain combines several technologies

to create a distributed, consensus driven database with four key technical features. It is the

combination of these features – rather than any of the individual elements – that is novel.

These are:

Distribution - Blockchain does not rely on a single centralised record. It is a shared

ledger, visible to every node or participant;

Security - the use of public/private key cryptography or asymmetric cryptography makes

it possible for Blockchain data to be public, yet secure;

Immutability - the process by which data is added to Blockchains prevents subsequent

tampering or amendment;

Trust - a consensus mechanism means that Blockchain data is a trusted, mutually agreed

record.

Current applications demonstrate how Blockchains can already perform such a wide variety of

functions (for example; Payments, Registers of ownership and the ability to execute rules-

based transactions using 'smart contracts'). In addition, the way Blockchain has developed

makes it highly adaptable. Variations on the core concept are multiplying fast at the hands of Fin

Techs, financial institutions and other organisations.

Blockchain will drive a revolution within Financial Services operating models and client

services. Industry-wide transformation is very possible, although identifying optimal use cases is

vital, but challenging given Blockchain’s rapid evolution. Practicality poses a real obstacle to

scaling Blockchain; there could be cultural, financial, regulatory and reputational hurdles too.

40. The Central Banks and Regulators need to consider that Blockchain and DLT is more than a

technology, it will disrupt business processes, governance and regulation (legal and technical). It

has the potential to introduce new ‘black swans’ that can have a dramatic impact on Systemic

Risk.

As stated below much of the application of Blockchain today is based on improving the

efficiency of current established process within Financial Services. It is clear that a different

approach needs to be considered by the Central Banks and their associated regulators. Foresight

exercises are potential options for this. A series of “Visionarios” could be run, using the

premise that Blockchain and DLT will become a technical and legal standard and then to

consider how the business process would be built around the DLT. So for example, build up

the business process for foreign exchange based on the standard of the DLT; review who will

be the counterparties; review the intermediaries/aggregators required; who will need to view

the state or the DLT? What reporting/intervention/control is required by the Central

13 See http://www.euromoneyseminars.com/articles/3562064/getting-value-from-blockchain.html

http://www.euromoneyseminars.com/articles/3562064/getting-value-from-blockchain.html

25

CPTM



Banks? What would be the role of central regulators? What should the business process be,

given the desire for instantaneous exchange? How will the DLT scale?14

There is the opportunity for the Central Banks to become the aggregator of Blockchains and

DLT’s for Financial Services. Collaboration between Central Banks would create a network

of aggregated Blockchains.

41. While Financial institutions have a hugely valuable opportunity to leverage this new and

distinctive technology for their clients' and their own benefits, understanding what Blockchain

can do is much more important than understanding how it works. For Financial institutions, the

DLT delivers the following "outcome characteristics":

Single version of the truth - Blockchain provides a tamperproof, mutually agreed record

that is visible to all participants, without the bottlenecks of centralised networks;

Resilience - Distribution, cryptography and consensus mean that Blockchains can be

secured against infrastructure failure, cyber-attack and data corruption;

Reliability - Immutability and the consensus mechanism mean that Blockchain data can

be trusted by all users

It is these characteristics, not the technology itself, which gives Blockchain so many

compelling applications across Financial Services.

The strengths of Blockchain – trust, security, reliability, accuracy – are all areas where financial

institutions have been on the defensive over the past decade. So for banks and other

intermediaries, Blockchain offers Financial Institutions a chance to reclaim their central position

in the financial infrastructure. At the same time, Blockchain gives non-financial challengers a

chance to circumvent barriers to entry and attack incumbents.

42. The Blockchain environments/technology are being developed internationally, across country

borders and, therefore, the impact/effect will be seen by all economies. The current

implementations are predominately focused on improving the Financial Services value chain and

operational efficiencies by: reducing intermediaries, (disintermediation) simplifying payments,

reducing counterparty risk, removing complexity, improving transparency. (For further

background information click here and see chapter on Reducing intermediaries, simplifying

payments, reducing counterparty risk, removing complexity, improving transparency )

The DLT environment provides simplification and transparency for the Financial Services

within a country and across borders. The transparency of transactions and reporting will also be

improved through real-time visualisation of the “current state”, providing Central Banks with a

current view of the state of the financial systems. This transparency and reporting will also

provide insight and reduce the threat from fraud and money laundering internally and externally.

By design, in a DLT environment, the information recorded on the ledgers is made public to the

participants of the network, or at least to ‘permissioned’ participants. This information typically

comprises the history of the transactions and the balance of cash and assets held on accounts. The

14 For more information on Foresight and Visionarios, please see the recent Briefing on The CPTM Smart Partnership

Think Tanking on National Visioning and Foresight: Sharing Experiences with Professor Sheila Ronis https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7306435792



26

CPTM



very nature of the development of DLT environment’s and the way they are implemented will also

mean that the barriers to entry would be reduced.

This would therefore mean that the Central Banking function would need to consider how to

manage the monetary policy and financial stability where the ‘deposits’ would be in the form

of virtual currency. This will pose a number of challenges for Central Banks, including how to

control money supply when the country’s currency is outside the border “within a virtual

economy” potentially controlled by a third party, as well as how to link back to Fiat currency.

43. Aligned to this is clearly the opportunity to expand the Financial Systems (banking) across the

economies with new models of peer to peer financing. This will generate in-country lending and

intra country lending scheme.

The deployment of the DLT could raise fair competition issues. For example, the supporters of a

DLT network could prevent new ‘participants’ from joining or impose such conditions that it

becomes economically unviable for new members to join the network. A monopoly-like situation

could emerge, with possible negative consequences on the cost and the quality of the services. It

might be difficult to establish competitive ledgers or to ensure the interoperability between

ledgers, thus negatively impacting the competitive nature of markets.

As articulated, common settlement systems will be changed. For example, foreign exchange will

transform DTCC (The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation), CLS (Continuous Linked

Settlement) and SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication). The

introduction of DLT technology will shorten the settlement cycle of the transactions, which

means that each party would be exposed for a shorter period of time to the risk of default of the

other party. It is even argued that the DLT may eliminate the counterparty risk of certain

transactions and remove the need for Central Counterparty (CCP) clearing because the

settlement could be almost instantaneous.

44. It has become clear through the research that the current focus is on improving the supply

chain, automating process and removing manual gaps, using the technology to reduce

operational risk, improve transparency and reporting. Today, the truly innovative application

of DLT has not become openly available; it is currently making things better rather than providing

truly disruptive change.

The disruptive change to Financial Services will not come directly from the originators of the

technology – it will come from mass adoption of the use of the DLT environment by users. As

seen in the development of the Internet, major disruptive business process and models took a

number of years to become established and profitable. So there is the opportunity for the CCP to

become, alongside Central Banks and Regulators, the Central Aggregators of Blockchains.

27

CPTM



Risk, Regulation and Governance

45. The nature of the development of DLT environment suggests that while the Operational Risk

will reduce locally, the Systemic Risk will be enhanced or changed. There are benefits in

reducing Operational Risk15 within the Financial System for the permissioned Blockchain -

DLT. (For further background information click here and see chapter on Systemic and

Operational Risk)

The DLTs are built around high availability, integrity and view consistency – with complex

consensus protocols that are employed to ensure that every ‘permissioned’ participant has a

consistent view. The very nature of the distributed, networked Blockchain ensures there

would be a continuously available view of the Distributed Ledger, that points of failure are

removed and a ‘single view of the truth’ is always available.

This also ensures that there is the ability to ‘recover’ to a point in time; to see the history of the

transactions within the Blockchain. The shared nature of the Distributed Ledgers may mitigate the

risk that a cyber-attack directed to a single point brings down the entire network as might be the

case with the current systems. Having said this, a flaw in the system could have wider

consequences; in that an error or attack can easily cause complete failure.

Therefore, there is a need for a common view or vision across the Central Banks, considering the

benefits, reducing operational risk, but also recognising the change in systemic risk.

46. The Central Banks and country regulators need to consider how the Blockchain - DLT

would fit into the existing regulatory framework. This regulatory framework needs to cover

legal, process and technical standard for both Operations and Systemic Risk. The current

regulatory framework for Operational Risk as detailed in the Bank of International Settlements -

Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk16 would need to be extended to

consider the full effect of Blockchain - DLT.

Supervising a DLT ‘network’ might be more complex than supervising current central

market infrastructures, in particular considering that different nodes might be established in

different jurisdictions and subject to different privacy, insolvency and other requirements.

47. The key common Financial Services regulations likely to apply, and how these would reflect

in terms of requirements for the participants to the DLT network, need to be considered. Legal

issues, such as the legality and enforceability of the records kept on the DLT, also need to be

carefully considered. Differences in laws across countries may also interfere with a wide

deployment of the DLT across Financial Services. Therefore, Central Banks and Regulators need

to collaborate and consider how the legal, process and technical standards will need to change and

adapt with regard to Systemic Risk, Operational Risk and the associated standards and

governance.

15 Operational Risk is defined as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or

from external events. This definition includes legal risk, but excludes strategic and reputational risk. 16 Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs195.pdf


http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs195.pdf

28

CPTM



Systemic Risk

48. The Systemic Risk17 will be changed - improved in some areas, affected in others. For

example, with the unique reference system and more automated and harmonised processes across

participants, asset classes, the DLT could contribute to herding behaviour and increase market

volatility in times of stress. It could also increase the interconnectedness between market

participants, by making it easier for them to interact with one another, which could increase the

spreading of shocks. The DLT could also lead to risk accumulating in less regulated segments of

the markets. Finally, it could boost certain market segments where the activity is currently

hindered by cumbersome post-trading processes and create new pockets of risks in financial

markets. Some of the risks, which may exist in the current market infrastructure already, could

potentially be heightened if the DLT was to be deployed widely.

49. Implementation of DLT would help mitigate Operational risks, by increasing the

automation of back office processes and reducing the potential for human errors. However,

a glitch or a failure in the system could have far-reaching consequences with regards Systemic

Risk. Indeed, because market participants would rely on the same system and the same processes,

which would be largely automated, the need for checks and balances might be reduced. While this

would be largely beneficial, it could leave the system unduly exposed in case of anomaly and the

potential for increased Systemic Risk.

Similarly, the use of smart contracts should in principle reduce the likelihood of errors, e.g.,

by automating the processing of corporate actions, but could also create additional risks in the

absence of adequate controls, e.g., if the coding is erroneous. In other words, the occurrence of

errors might be lower, but their impact could be higher. Unless adequate controls are in place,

some participants to the network could also unduly exploit the information recorded on the

network, e.g., recent trades made by competitors or the level of their inventories, to front-run them

or manipulate the market. The lower the privacy level of the network or the lower the safeguards

attached to it, the higher the risks would be.

Standards and Governance of Blockchain

50. Common standards (legal and technical) are required to ensure that the DLT does not add

another layer of complexity to Financial Services markets, because of the use of complex

encryption techniques. The latter could have negative implications from a risk management or

oversight perspective. Indeed, while the DLT should in principle enhance the traceability of

transactions and transparency, the encryption of the information could make it harder to

disentangle it and to process it, at least in the short term. This could effectively render supervisory

work more challenging. DLT standards and governance need to be introduced in each country to

control and manage the adoption within the country and between countries.18

17 Systemic Risk is defined as the risk of collapse of an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed

to risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system, that can be contained therein without

harming the entire system. 18 In the context of standards, it is worth noting the additional information from Professor Michael Mainelli (Z/Yen) Between July and October 2015, Z/Yen led a research consortium (including PwC, a global accountancy firm, Suncorp, an

Australian insurance company, and DueDil, a UK corporate credit referencing company) to build and evaluate a set of

distributed ledgers de novo. We were delighted that the States of Alderney participated in that project as a regulatory

observer. InterChainZ demonstrated it was indeed possible to build distributed ledgers that can store, exchange, and keep

records of any kind. We have demonstrated an interface for tasks including selection & storage of documents, document

encryption, sharing keys, viewing the InterChainZ transactions, and viewing the InterChainZ contents subject to encrypted

29

CPTM



Technical Standards

51. During the 2016 CPTM Think Tanking of Central Bank Governors, Standards Australia

informed the Governors that they had submitted a proposal for a first Blockchain standard to the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 19 with reference to leveraging pre-existing

standards such as ISO 20022. This would be a technical standard, rather than a

governance/regulatory standard. (For further background information click here and see

chapter on Systemic and Operational Risk)

As noted in the Financial Times, regulators have been wary of the technology, warning of its

potential vulnerability to fraud or to undermining financial stability. The UK Financial

Conduct Authority (FCA), stated that “Blockchain has got some potentially interesting

applications and we are talking to firms thinking about how to apply that to financial services

and how it could benefit consumers or indeed make the business of compliance easier” said

Chris Woolard, the FCA’s director of strategy and competition. 20

Legal Standards

52. The Central Banks need to consider developing a permission-based framework for

Blockchain - DLT. This would require rules to approve/reject authorised participants. Factors that

may be worth considering when designing these rules may include minimum capital requirements,

conduct of business rules and risk management processes. Also, there may be a trade-off between

accepting many participants at the risk of making the system unduly complex and being

excessively selective at the risk of limiting the scope of the network. In addition to the legal and

technical aspects of Standards, we should also take into account the need for Standards to cover

business processes.21 limits. The interface was deliberately simple, and served the purpose of demonstrating how distributed ledgers work in

practice.

Z/Yen believe this is an appropriate time to engage further with regulators from the Jersey, Isle of Man, Ireland, and other

jurisdictions, as well as PwC and other private sector organisations, to evaluate the feasibility of building standards for

financial and other services that will be supported by MDLs. Such services already include timestamping, archiving,

regulatory reporting, deal rooms, asset transfer, asset maintenance, identity, wholesale payments, contract execution, and,

of course, cryptocurrencies.

Several jurisdictions aspire to be the “standards regulators” for mutual distributed ledgers in future and require standards

to underpin such a role. This regulation would be on a federal basis, especially where it is determined that certain

standards are mandatory, and that certain standards require some mandatory form of accreditation or certification. Such a

federal basis may well involve the ISO accreditation/certification system, i.e. a voluntary standards market. Private sector

participants may, in future, be ‘standards certifiers’, but that is beyond the scope of this study. Standards are likely to be of

two types (a) governance, and (b) technical fit for purpose and performance standards (as opposed to technical ‘how to’

standards). External resources, i.e. Z/Yen, are being used to accelerate this aspiration and help increase the skills of the

jurisdiction to deliver this aspiration. We recognised that the medium to long-term objective is for the islands to deliver

regulation themselves on a federal basis. The project should promote jurisdictions equally throughout. The current project

is due to report October. 19 See http://www.standards.org.au/OurOrganisation/News/Documents/Media%20Release%20-

%20International%20Blockchain%20Standard%20-%2014%20April%202016.pdf and the Video Message from Standards

Australia on Blockchain https://www.dropbox.com/s/h8lq9954kt7hgyb/StandardsAus-blockchain-message.mp4.zip?dl=0 20 See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ab3c696-6634-11e6-8310-ecf0bddad227.html#ixzz4I8xseJTG 21 It should be noted that not everyone is convinced of the pressing need to develop standards for blockchain. See for

example, William Mougayar’s recent article for the CoinDesk website.

Let's start by stating the obvious – Warnings about the need for blockchain standards are premature and alarmist.

It's too early to claim that a lack of standards is hurting blockchain technology adoption, or to call for standards bodies like

the International Standards Organization (ISO) to get involved and define what they should be. (Though, there are already

groups doing this). The topic of blockchain standards is complicated, and it extends beyond just seeing it as an

interoperability challenge. This is because blockchain standards can be divided into three interrelated vectors, comprised of

technical, business and legal considerations.


https://www.ft.com/content/d6813cba-dd55-11e5-b072-006d8d362ba3

http://www.standards.org.au/OurOrganisation/News/Documents/Media%20Release%20-%20International%20Blockchain%20Standard%20-%2014%20April%202016.pdf



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ab3c696-6634-11e6-8310-ecf0bddad227.html#ixzz4I8xseJTG

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/australia-pushes-iso-for-blockchain-standards/news-story/514516e87f4ff244a8e81e41f6fe7ef0

30

CPTM



The rules to govern the interactions between participants, both ‘permissioned’ and ‘non-

permissioned’ will be necessary. These rules would need to address many and potentially complex

issues. Examples include the liabilities of the respective participants, including in case of fraud or

error, correction mechanisms and penalties in case of infringement to the rules, the intellectual

property attached to the technology or the territoriality of the law likely to apply to the network.

(For further background information click here and see chapter on Benefits relating to

Reduced Fraud, Improved KYC and Replicated/Permissioned Data) An agreement between

the participants on their remuneration model would also be needed. Furthermore, the

governance framework should provide clarity on the entity or group of entities that would be

held liable for the activities of the network vis-à-vis third parties, in particular local regulators and

customers.

Know Your Client (KYC)

53. It seems that the DLT could be used to store and share private information on clients, e.g. for

KYC procedure purposes. The question then arises as to how the public nature of the ledger,

which is embedded in the technology, might combine with the need to preserve the anonymity and

privacy of some of the information recorded in the ledger. The use of encryption identifiers (i.e.

private keys) instead of names could provide some level of privacy, e.g. the exact identity of a

party to a transaction or the name of an account holder could remain unknown to most

participants. Yet, the operation of those private keys would need to be carefully designed and

controlled. Different levels of access to the network, depending on the exact nature and scope of

the participant, might also be needed. There are associated risks in that Private/public keys might

be lost or stolen and used fraudulently to record fictitious transactions. In the absence of a

sufficiently robust governance framework, dishonest nodes might also take control of the network,

even temporarily, and alter the consensus process. The use of these keys could make it easier to

conceal identities and to hide the history of transactions, thereby increasing the risk of money

laundering and terrorist financing activities.

What is the role of Central Banks and Regulators?

54. Currently Financial Institutions are realizing that Blockchain itself represents a powerful

combination of financial and technological innovation; a disrupter that will change today's

financial world and make huge swathes of the current industry redundant. Central Banks need to

understand that Blockchain as a disrupter will not disappear, that while there is much market hype

around this, the final uses will develop in time. The risk is that a use is taken up by the population,

without institutional control or oversight.

55. This transformation/adaptation process cannot be driven by the Financial Institution, third

party technology providers, new entrants and collaborations. What is clear is that Central Banks

and regulators need to consider Blockchain more than a technology, it will disrupt business

process, governance, regulation (legal and technical). It has the potential to introduce new ‘black

swans’ that can dramatically impact on Systemic Risk.

If you perceive the blockchain as a technology, then you will implement it as a technology. If you see it as a business change

enabler, then you will think about business processes. If you discern the legal implications, you will be emboldened by its

new governance characteristics. http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-standards-alarmist/


http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-standards-alarmist/

31

CPTM



56. Current emerging applications demonstrate how Blockchains can already perform a wide

variety of functions (for example; Payments, Registers of ownership and the ability to execute

rules-based transactions using 'smart contracts'). In addition, the Open-source nature of

Blockchain makes it highly adaptable; although the very nature of this introduces additional

Operational Risk, when considered by Central Banks and Regulators. Applications are diverging

rapidly as developers modify one or more elements of previous versions.

57. Financial institutions see a number of "outcome characteristics" as being: a single version

of the truth, resilience and reliability. The Central Banks need to consider these outcome

characteristics and determine how they can be used – to improve governance, supervision

and regulation.

There is an opportunity for the Central Banks to become the aggregator of Blockchains and

DLT’s for Financial Services. Collaboration between Central Banks would create a network

of aggregated Blockchains.

58. Central Banks and Regulators need to consider the various uses-cases that are being proposed

for Blockchains within Financial Institutions. Blockchain is providing a long overdue stimulus for

industry-wide co-operation on technology. Without the management by the Central Banks and

Regulators, co-operation between suppliers, clients and peers will be a challenge as each are

traditionally reluctant to share intellectual property, agreeing interoperability protocols.

Creativity and imagination will be vital to developing the best use-cases for Blockchain and the

drive from the Central Banks will be crucial in achieving commercial success.

59. As yet, there is no consensus over the optimal use-cases for Blockchain. This is

understandable, given the novelty of the technology and Financial Institutions' uncertainty over

how to harness its potential.

The disruptive change to Financial Services will not come directly from the originators of the

technology – it will come from mass adoption of the use of the DLT environment by users. As

seen in the development of the Internet, major disruptive business process and models took a

number of years to become established and profitable. The risk for the Central Banks is, as

mentioned, that the mass adoption could occur through a development of a Central Payment

System on an un-regulated social media site.

60. Central Banking functions would need to consider how to manage the monetary policy and

financial stability where the ‘deposits’ would be in the form of virtual currency. There would also

be questions regarding how to control money supply, when the country’s currency is outside the

border “within a virtual economy” potentially controlled by a third party, which is not regulated in

the country, as well as how to link back to Fiat currency.

61. The impact of Blockchain will vary across different geographies. In particular, the

greatest impact of Blockchain may not be felt in Europe and North America, where financial

infrastructures are at their most complicated, but in Africa or Asia where technology is less

mature.

62. Central Banks will need to work collaboratively, in a Smart Partnership Way, and accept

Blockchain as a given, analyse how the ‘in-country’ and ‘cross border’ Banking/Financial

32

CPTM



Services would develop, what are the new business models and processes that would develop

based on Blockchain.

Blockchain’s ability to provide reassurance and certainty on a shared, decentralised basis carries

huge significance for financial institutions - and their would-be challengers. Blockchain will not

entirely 'replace' any aspect of financial services, but expect it to reshape or even revolutionise

business models in many sectors of the industry.

63. The Central Banks and country regulators need to consider how the Blockchain - DLT

would fit into the existing regulatory framework. This regulatory framework needs to cover

legal, process and technical standards for both Operational and Systemic Risk. The challenge

relating to Systemic Risk is higher that the benefits associated with Operational Risk.

64. Central Banks and the regulators need to consider how to move from the standard associated

with Technical Code to the Legal/Process and Regulations. This would entail controlling the

Technical Code and regulating the developing and re-engineered business process through legal

means - a code. The implementation of Blockchains and DLT will significantly change business

process. The Central Banks need to use their power with the regulator to manage the

transformation of business process.

Further detailed background mentioned above is available by clicking here.




ANNEXES

Annex I

Definitions of Key Terms Extract from Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain

A report by the UK Chief Scientific Adviser22

Blockchain is a type of database that takes a number of records and puts them in a block

(rather like collating them on to a single sheet of paper). Each block is then ‘chained’ to the

next block, using a cryptographic signature. It is analogous to a database that shows all

changes made since its creation. This allows Blockchain to be used like a Distributed

ledger, which can be shared and corroborated by anyone with the appropriate permissions.

The real novelty of Blockchain technology is that it is more than just a database — it can also set

rules about a transaction (business logic) that are tied to the transaction itself. This contrasts with

conventional databases, in which rules are often set at the entire database level, or in the

application, but not in the transaction.

Major players in the financial industry have seized on the technology that maintains the

Blockchain (or common ledger) as a significant innovation.23 It is seen by many as a way to

achieve a reliable shared list without having a central party to maintain it.24

There are many ways to corroborate the accuracy of a ledger, but they are broadly known as

consensus, the process of solving complex mathematical equations as part of verifying

changes made to the ledger.25

If participants in that process are preselected, the ledger is Private – permissioned – see

below

o Permissioned where all group members maintain integrity

o Double Permissioned - only a privileged group member maintain integrity

o Un-permissioned ledgers - operate by decentralized competition reduces availability

and resilience

If the process is open to everyone, the ledger is Public – unpermissioned see below

o Double permissionless or integrity maintained through a ledger reward

o Permissionless integrity maintained through off ledger incentives

Permissioned ledgers may have one or many owners. When a new record is added, the ledger’s

integrity is checked by a limited consensus process. This is carried out by trusted actors:

government departments or banks, for example, which makes maintaining a shared record much

simpler that the consensus process used by unpermissioned ledgers. Permissioned block chains

22 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-

technology.pdf 23 Nathaniel Popper, Wall Street Takes a Keen Interest in Bitcoin’s Latest Technology; Bitcoin’s Blockchain Tech Is Being

Examined to See if It Can Be Used to Create a New Way of Transacting Online, IRISH TIMES (Sept. 14, 2015), http:/

/www.irishtimes.com/business/wall-street-takes-a-keen-interest-in-bitcoin-s-technolo gy-1.2340274 (reporting on the

interest in Blockchain technology by numerous major banks across the globe) 24 Robinson & Leising, supra note 16; The Great Chain of Being Sure About Things, ECONOMIST, Oct. 31, 2015, at 21. 25 See ANDREAS M. ANTONOPOULOS, MASTERING BITCOIN: UNLOCKING DIGITAL CRYPTOCURRENCIES 18

(2014).

CPTM



33

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf


34

provide highly-verifiable data sets because the consensus process creates a digital signature,

which can be seen by all parties. Requiring many government departments to validate a record

could give a high degree of confidence in the record’s security, for example, in contrast to the

current situation where departments often have to share data using pieces of paper. A

permissioned ledger is usually faster than an unpermissioned ledger.

Unpermissioned ledgers such as Bitcoin have no single owner—indeed, they cannot be owned.

The purpose of an unpermissioned ledger is to allow anyone to contribute data to the ledger and

for everyone in possession of the ledger to have identical copies. This creates censorship

resistance, which means that no actor can prevent a transaction from being added to the ledger.

Participants maintain the integrity of the ledger by reaching a consensus about its state.

Unpermissioned ledgers can be used as a global record that cannot be edited: for declaring a last

will and testament, for example, or assigning property ownership. But they also pose a challenge

to institutional power structures and existing industries, and this may warrant a policy response.

Distributed ledgers are a type of database that is spread across multiple sites, countries or

institutions, and is typically public. Records are stored one after the other in a continuous ledger,

rather than sorted into blocks, but they can only be added when the participants reach a quorum.

A distributed ledger requires greater trust in the validators or operators of the ledger. For

example, the global financial transactions system Ripple selects a list of validators (known as

Unique Node Validators) from up to 200 known, unknown or partially known validators who are

trusted not to collude in defrauding the actors in a transaction. This process provides a digital

signature that is considered less censorship resistant than Bitcoin’s, but is significantly faster.

Shared ledger is a term coined by Richard Brown, formerly of IBM and now Chief Technology

Officer of the Distributed Ledger Group, which typically refers to any database and application

that is shared by an industry or private consortium, or that is open to the public. It is the most

generic and catch-all term for this group of technologies.

A shared ledger may use a distributed ledger or block chain as its underlying database, but will

often layer on permissions for different types of users. As such, ‘shared ledger’ represents a

spectrum of possible ledger or database designs that are permissioned at some level. An

industry’s shared ledger may have a limited number of fixed validators who are trusted to

maintain the ledger, which can offer significant benefits.

Smart contracts are contracts whose terms are recorded in a computer language instead of legal

language. Smart contracts can be automatically executed by a computing system, such as a

suitable distributed ledger system. The potential benefits of smart contracts include low

contracting, enforcement, and compliance costs; consequently, it becomes economically viable

to form contracts over numerous low-value transactions. The potential risks include a reliance on

the computing system that executes the contract. At this stage, the risks and benefits are largely

theoretical because the technology of smart contracts is still in its infancy, and some time away

from widespread deployment.

Smart contracts are self-executing codes meant to replicate the terms of a given contract. They

effectively translate contractual terms (e.g., payment terms and conditions, confidentiality

agreements) into computational material.

35

Annex II

Selected Smart Reading Tips

General CPTM Documents

o CPTM Limitless Opportunities through Smart Partnership


o The CPTM Way


o CPTM 2015 Executive Brief to Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)


o Central Bank Governors’ Think Tanking 2016, ‘CPTM Highlights & Insights on Adaptive

Flexibility Approaches to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age’


o CPTM Smart Partnership Inclusion Initiative on the Emerging Digital Landscape –

Challenges and Opportunities https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7654664001

o CPTM Brief on the Africa Open Data Conference, Dar es Salaam, 2015


Part I - Adaptive Flexibility Approaches to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age

o The 2016 Brookings Financial and Digital Inclusion Project Report: Advancing Equitable

Financial Ecosystems https://www.brookings.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2016/08/fdip_20160816_project_report.pdf

o GPFI and G20 Principles for Innovative Financial Inclusion


o World Bank Global Findex Database Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World


o Bank of England, Finance Version 2.0?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2016/slides891.pdf

o Bank of England FinTech Accelerator ‘Proof of Concept’


o Emerging Digital Landscape and Supercomputing, Mr Nkundwe Moses Mwasaga

presentation


o De-risking Strategies of Canadian and American Banks (Montreal Meeting of the Regional

Consultative Group for the Americas)


o De-Risking and its Impact: The Caribbean Perspective


o Understanding Bank De-Risking and its Effects on Financial Inclusion

http://www.globalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/rr-bank-de-risking-181115-en.pdf

o Willke, Becker and Rostasy, Systemic Risk: The Myth of Rational Finance and the Crisis of

Democracy https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D667256_92_7332823972

o Thomas Philippon, The FinTech Opportunity












http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2016/slides891.pdf





http://www.globalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/rr-bank-de-risking-181115-en.pdf



36

Part II - Sharing Experiences: National Contexts of Financial Inclusion

o Tanzania Narrows the Financial Inclusion Gender Gap

http://www.afi-global.org/countries/tanzania

o Swaziland Financial Inclusion Country Report 2014

http://www.uncdf.org/sites/default/files//Documents/swazi_synthesis_report_repro.pdf

o Dr Caleb Fundanga on the origins of the CPTM Financial Inclusion group


o 7th Annual Global Policy Forum 2015, Maputo, Mozambique

http://www.afi-global.org/global-policy-forum/2015

Part III - Strategic Interdependencies for Financial Inclusion: Statistics, Data & Standards

in a Digital Landscape

o Standards Australia and Blockchain

o Australia proposes International Blockchain Standards

http://www.standards.org.au/OurOrganisation/News/Documents/Media%20Release%

20-%20International%20Blockchain%20Standard%20-%2014%20April%202016.pdf

o Australia pushes ISO for blockchain standards

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/australia-pushes-iso-for-

blockchain-standards/news-story/514516e87f4ff244a8e81e41f6fe7ef0

o Reserve Bank of Australia on Blockchain: The Ongoing Evolution of the Australian

Payments System http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2016/sp-so-2016-02-23.html

o ISO 37001- Anti-Bribery Management Systems http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_37001_anti-

bribery_management_systems_standard_brochure.pdf

o ITU - Digital Financial Services

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2016/26.aspx#.V2uj66L0_yM

o The Digital Financial Services Ecosystem

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-

T/focusgroups/dfs/Documents/09_2016/FINAL%20ENDORSED%20ITU%20DFS%2

0Introduction%20Ecosystem%2028%20April%202016_formatted%20AM.pdf

o Mr Alan Bryden, Information on ISO international standards and financial services


o Carl Miller (CASM), ‘A Question of Trust’

http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Question_of_Trust_-_web.pdf

o Demos Quarterly: Technology Edition – Issue 8, Spring 2016

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/issue/issue-8/

o Foreword by Carl Miller and Jamie Bartlett

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/introduction/

o Dr Amirudin Abdul Wahab, ‘Demos Quarterly: Tapping Social Media for Social

Good’

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/tapping-social-media-for-social-good-

three-inspirational-initiatives-to-promote-social-wellbeing/

o Mr Nkundwe Moses Mwasaga, ‘Demos Quarterly: Sub-Saharan Africa’s Digital

Sphere’

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/status-mobile-networks-and-social-media-

in-sub-saharan-africa/

http://www.afi-global.org/countries/tanzania

http://www.uncdf.org/sites/default/files/Documents/swazi_synthesis_report_repro.pdf


http://www.afi-global.org/global-policy-forum/2015





http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2016/sp-so-2016-02-23.html

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_37001_anti-bribery_management_systems_standard_brochure.pdf

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_37001_anti-bribery_management_systems_standard_brochure.pdf

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2016/26.aspx#.V2uj66L0_yM

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/dfs/Documents/09_2016/FINAL%20ENDORSED%20ITU%20DFS%20Introduction%20Ecosystem%2028%20April%202016_formatted%20AM.pdf




http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Question_of_Trust_-_web.pdf

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/issue/issue-8/

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/introduction/

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/tapping-social-media-for-social-good-three-inspirational-initiatives-to-promote-social-wellbeing/

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/tapping-social-media-for-social-good-three-inspirational-initiatives-to-promote-social-wellbeing/

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/status-mobile-networks-and-social-media-in-sub-saharan-africa/

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-8/status-mobile-networks-and-social-media-in-sub-saharan-africa/

37

Part IV - Blockchain: A New Digital Disrupter and the effect on Financial Services

o Euromoney Seminars: Getting Value from Blockchain


o Briefing on The CPTM Smart Partnership Think Tanking on National Visioning and

Foresight: Sharing Experiences with Professor Sheila Ronis


o Financial Times: FCA considers approving blockchain businesses


o Finance and Beyond: An Infographic Map of Bitcoin and the Emerging Blockchain

Ecosystem https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/finance-and-beyond-an-infographic-map-of-

bitcoin-and-the-emerging-blockchain-ecosystem-1461789453

o Enabling the FinTech transformation: Revolution, Restoration, or Reformation? - speech by

Mark Carney http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2016/914.aspx

o Alex Tapscott, Don Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution (Penguin, 2016)


o Blockchain Predictions for 2016

http://www.the-blockchain.com/2015/12/14/adi-ben-ari-blockchain-predictions-for-2016/

o Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain, UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-

distributed-ledger-technology.pdf

o FinTech Futures, UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413095/gs-

15-3-fintech-futures.pdf

o ChainVine http://chainvine.com/

o The DAO attack & its implications by Mr Kartik Natarajan

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dao-attack-its-implications-kartik-natarajan?trk=prof-post

o William Mougayar, ‘What We Can Learn From The DAO’, Coindesk, (June 21, 2016)

http://www.coindesk.com/can-learn-dao/ and http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-

standards-alarmist/

o Bank of International Settlements, ‘Digital Currencies’

http://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d137.pdf

o Bank of International Settlements, ‘86th Annual Report (FY 2015-16)’

https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2016e_ec.pdf

For further webcasts and Smart Partnership videos, please visit the CPTM Smart

Partnership YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb7YTOXGwEomiFAdVqiK-ww




https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/finance-and-beyond-an-infographic-map-of-bitcoin-and-the-emerging-blockchain-ecosystem-1461789453

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/finance-and-beyond-an-infographic-map-of-bitcoin-and-the-emerging-blockchain-ecosystem-1461789453

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2016/914.aspx


http://www.the-blockchain.com/2015/12/14/adi-ben-ari-blockchain-predictions-for-2016/



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413095/gs-15-3-fintech-futures.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413095/gs-15-3-fintech-futures.pdf

http://chainvine.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dao-attack-its-implications-kartik-natarajan?trk=prof-post

http://www.coindesk.com/can-learn-dao/



http://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d137.pdf

https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2016e_ec.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb7YTOXGwEomiFAdVqiK-ww

38

For more detailed insights please follow the link:

‘CPTM Highlights & Insights on Adaptive Flexibility Approaches to Financial

Inclusion in a Digital Age’



39

Annex III

About CPTM

CPTM has a clearly defined mandate to provide advisory services to Governments on

matters related to science & technology, to economic development and wealth creation

through sound management of technology, using Public/Private Sector Partnerships. This is

achieved primarily in two ways: through International Smart Partnership Dialogues and

other co-operative interactions and through Networking and Partnership Development.

CPTM was established by Commonwealth Heads of Government at CHOGM 1995, New

Zealand, as a distinct cooperative framework of Commonwealth Governments, Private and

Public Sector organisations and Networking Professionals. Its Mission is to apply Smart

Partnership approach to development and transformation, continuing the work of the

Commonwealth Science Council’s Science Management Organisation (CSCSMO), initiated

in 1984 through the Kendrew Report on Science for Technology for Development. The

CSCSMO network went through various transformations - as reflected in the communiques

from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings - such as COMMANSAT,

Commonwealth Management for Science Technology (1989), CCGTM, Commonwealth

Consultative Group on Technology Management (1992) and finally CPTM, Commonwealth

Partnership for Technology Management (1995) and the emerging Smart Partnership

Movement.

The inclusive nature of the CPTM Smart Partnership Financial Inclusion Initiative is

reflected in the broad spectrum of participants and invitees to recent interactions. These

included Central Bank Governors (and representatives), Ministers of Finance as well as

practitioners and representatives from the various Smart Partners’ Networking Webs:

Southern, East & West Africa, including Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi,

Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda,

Zambia, Zimbabwe

Caribbean & North America including Barbados

South East Asia/Pacific, including Bangladesh, India and Malaysia

West Asia/Mediterranean & Europe, including Cyprus and Malta

International Organisations such as African Development Bank (ABD), BSI, Centre for

the Analysis of Social Media (CASM) at Demos, International Standards Organisation

(ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), The Institute of Chartered

Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA), Macroeconomic and Financial Management

Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa (MEFMI), Overseas Development Institute

(ODI) among others.

40

The CPTM Smart Partnership Financial Inclusion Initiative

The CPTM Smart Partnership Movement promotes inclusive approaches, meaning that

all members of society have access to, or benefit from, technology and innovation,

quality of goods and services and financial facilities.

The 2015 CPTM Brief for CFMM is a summary of the latest developments of the CPTM

Financial Inclusion Initiative during the year. CPTM Financial Inclusion Initiative exists

within the context of CPTM Smart Partnership Movement’s strategic initiatives: innovative

tools for achieving socio-economic transformation. Financial Inclusion in terms of Smart

Partnership lies within an integrated framework which includes Standards Inclusion and

Technology Inclusion. These provide a specialist multi-pronged approach which is over

arched by achieving National Visions in order for nations to succeed rather than fail. This

is part of a new adaptive flexibility approach, which is needed in order to manage

uncertainty, particularly at time of financial crisis in an interconnected world.

CPTM Smart Partners’ Financial Inclusion Initiative was launched during the Langkawi

International Dialogue (LID) in 2007 by the Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia. The

initiative was carried forward to the Mulungushi International Smart Partnership

Dialogue in Zambia in 2008, Global 2009 Smart Partnership Dialogue in Uganda,

Global 2011 LID Smart Partnership Dialogue, Global 2013 Smart Partnership in

Tanzania and developed further until present.

Leading Central Banks involved in CPTM Financial Inclusion Advisers’ (FIA) Initiative

include: Barbados; Botswana; Cyprus; Kenya; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Mauritius;

Mozambique; Namibia; Seychelles; Swaziland; Tanzania; Uganda; Zambia;

Zimbabwe (among others).

The purpose of the CPTM Smart Partners’ Financial Inclusion initiative is to provide

practitioners and regulators in the area of financial inclusion with practical ideas via the

sharing of knowledge and experiences on developing institutional structures, creating an

enabling environment and enhancing financial literacy. The ideas and experiences shared

could then be contextualised to the prevailing local conditions to enhance financial

inclusion. This initial phase was followed a second stage whereby developments within

Mobile Banking advanced and were incorporated into many countries across the world.

Such mobile banking networks include Mpesa in Eastern Africa among others. The third and

latest phase sees the emergence of evolving flexible approaches for managing uncertainty

and interconnectedness.

Since 2012, a core group of Central Bank Governors have met annually at the CPTM

Smart Partners’ Hub for Think Tanking interaction based on Adaptive Flexibility

Approaches to Financial Inclusion. The outcomes of these interactions are then shared

with Commonwealth Finance Ministers ahead of their annual meetings in early October

each year.

The CPTM Smart Partnership Approach

to Socio-Economic Transformation

‘The CPTM Way’ Click here

‘Limitless Opportunities’ Click here

41



CPTM is a not-for-profit Company Limited by guarantee Incorporated in England on 13th June 1995, under Companies Act 1985 to 1989

“This Company is being established, with the agreement of Commonwealth Heads of Government,

pursuant to their decision taken at their meeting in Limassol on 25th October 1993 to revise the financial and organic structure of the Commonwealth Consultative Group on Technology Management.”

CCGTM was established by the CHOGM, Kuala Lumpur, 1989. CPTM Ltd was launched at the CHOGM, Auckland 1995.

CPTM SMART PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE™

“Towards a Smarter Globe”

Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management (CPTM)

Brief On Adaptive Flexibility Approaches

to Financial Inclusion in a Digital Age

- Recommendation and Proposals -

Published by CPTM, London, September 2016

Produced and edited by the CPTM Smart Partners’ Hub Team

For further information and background, contact

Dr Mihaela Y Smith, PJN KMN

CPTM Chief Executive / Joint Dialogue Convener

http://www.cptm.org/

[email protected]

CPTM

http://www.cptm.org/

mailto:[email protected]