Figures increase
Banking

BANKING PAYMENT EXPERT COMMENT RE TODAY’S SEPA DEADLINE

Published by Gbaf News

Posted on August 5, 2014

2 min read

· Last updated: June 1, 2020

Add as preferred source on Google

ECB Claims on SEPA Migration Rates

“The ECB figures showing migration levels of over 95% disguise several factors, most notably the failure of the SEPA project against the Terms of Reference: efficiency, harmonisation and cost. The operational efficiency of the SEPA project – especially in the Direct Debit scheme – has fallen dramatically compared to the legacy national schemes.

Bob Lyddon

Bob Lyddon

Limitations of ECB SEPA Metrics

Currently, ECB figures track SEPA migration as the switch in the clearing from legacy payments schemes in local data format to SEPA payments in ISO20022 XML data format. The ECB figures do not measure the take-up by customers of ISO20022 XML: many are using a conversion service in order to bypass the need to adopt ISO20022 XML directly, and therefore they are, strictly speaking, non-compliant.

The ECB, the Commission and the EPC have no reason to challenge this non-compliance, because they wish SEPA to be seen as a success.

Assessment of SEPA Project Outcomes

The whole SEPA project has been a failure in its stated aim of transforming a series of immature and inefficient domestic markets into a single efficient pan-European one right from the start. This is due to a number of reasons, namely that:

Comparing Legacy and SEPA Market Efficiency

• The legacy markets were both mature and efficient, but in some cases small scale
• SEPA has transformed them into the same number of markets, but all immature, and all with their own version of ISO20022 XML
• The overall efficiency of European payments markets has fallen
• There has been a large investment cost which will not be recovered, and we have wasted 10 years: the EPC SEPA Roadmap was published in 2004, was supposed to conclude in 2010, but in 2014 we are still only a small part of the way there.”

Key Takeaways

  • Despite over 95% SEPA migration reported by the ECB, many users remain non‑compliant by relying on conversion services rather than native ISO20022 XML.
  • Operational efficiency, particularly for SEPA Direct Debit, has declined compared to legacy national schemes.
  • SEPA has failed to deliver its intended harmonisation and cost‑efficiency, with legacy systems replaced by fragmented immature markets.
  • Significant investments have been sunk into SEPA without expected returns, turning a projected 2004–2010 roadmap into a prolonged process even by 2014.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is SEPA considered inefficient?
Lyddon claims operational efficiency, especially in Direct Debit, has worsened compared to mature legacy national schemes.
What does non‑compliance mean in this context?
Many customers use conversion tools to submit non‑ISO20022 XML; this technically avoids adopting the SEPA standard directly.
Has SEPA met its harmonisation goals?
No – the initiative created multiple immature markets with varied XML implementations instead of a single unified standard.
Was the SEPA roadmap completed on time?
No – the EPC roadmap launched in 2004 aimed to finish by 2010, but by 2014 progress remained limited despite heavy investments.

Tags

Related Articles

More from Banking

Explore more articles in the Banking category