Finally, the concerns of non-euro area Member States that the European Central Bank’s capital key would be used as a reference for raising fund contributions have been addressed by the decision to make them proportional to bank liabilities, less own funds and guaranteed deposits, which significantly reduces the participation costs of countries with relatively lower degrees of financial intermediation, such as Romania (34.8 percent of GDP in 2013) or even Poland (53.2 percent of GDP). Still, I think there is one particular issue where equal treatment of euro area and non-euro area members of the Banking Union is not ensured, namely the access to euro liquidity. Unlike euro area countries, which have access to financing from the European Central Bank, in non-euro countries liquidity will have to be provided by their respective central banks, including in euro. I believe there is a need to start discussions with the European Central Bank on short-term access to euro liquidity against non-euro collateral of appropriate quality for domesticallyowned credit institutions. Of course, I see this access as an emergency facility, which can be tapped only under severe or imminent stress to non-Eurozone host country financial stability. The issue is relevant for Central and Eastern European countries, among which Romania, where a significant degree of currency substitution in euro persists from before 2008 in terms of the stock of both loans and deposits (in Romania, more than 50 percent in the case of loans and 30 percent in the case of deposits).
To preserve this advantage, Norway needs to be a leader. Technological developments pave the way for new possibilities – new means of payment are introduced and existing means of payment become faster and cheaper. While most changes result in a more efficient system, they also pose new challenges. New technology and outsourcing require stricter standards for both the risk management framework and contingency preparedness. Responsibility rests with system owners. As supervisory and oversight authority, Norges Bank has a duty to point out any deficiencies and weaknesses. There are also challenges associated with the pricing of payment services. When given a choice of payment solution, customers are not charged prices that reflect actual costs. Does this make the system more expensive than necessary? Banks operate most of their payment solutions at a loss. Does this have to be? Are banks’ incentives to invest in secure and forward-looking solutions being weakened? Risk and costs are drivers of change The main structure of the payment system has remained fixed for a number of years, but there have been changes, both to the part of the system customers encounter and to interbank settlement. Behind many of the changes is a desire to reduce risk or costs, often both. 2  1  See the Payment Systems Act. 2  The discussion of trade-offs between costs and risk is inspired by Kahn et al.