Financial Stability Institute

FSI Survey

Basel II, 2.5 and III Implementation

July 2014
Contents

Contents .................................................................................................................................1
Introduction and background to the survey .............................................................................1
Section One: Survey responses on Basel II implementation ...................................................2
Section Two: Survey responses on Basel 2.5 implementation .............................................. 23
Section Three: Survey responses on Basel III implementation ............................................. 33
Annex 1: Email sent to jurisdictions ......................................................................................51
Annex 2: Survey questionnaire .............................................................................................52

Introduction and background to the survey

The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) has previously conducted surveys on subjects of
supervisory interest and shared the findings with the supervisory community. In 2004, the
FSI conducted a survey on Basel II implementation, which was followed by updates in 2006,
2008 and 2010.

In 2013, the FSI conducted a survey to ascertain the status/plans regarding the
implementation of Basel II, 2.5 and III in jurisdictions that are members of neither the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) nor the European Union (EU). The methodology
used in the survey was similar to the one adopted by the BCBS. In line with the BCBS’s
approach, the FSI published the results of its 2013 survey by disclosing all information
provided by individual jurisdictions. (http://www.bis.org/fsi/fsiop2013.htm)
As mentioned in the 2013 survey, the FSI will update the results of this survey every year. In
2014, the FSI contacted banking supervisory authorities in non-BCBS/non-EU jurisdictions
(see Annex 1) asking them to provide a current status report on the implementation of Basel
II, 2.5 and III in their jurisdictions (see Annex 2 for the related questionnaire).
In line with the 2013 approach, the FSI is publishing the results of its 2014 survey by
disclosing the information received from 90 non-BCBS/non-EU jurisdictions. 1 Survey results
are presented in three parts: Section One sets out responses in relation to Basel II
implementation, which includes the Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 requirements released by the BCBS
in 2006; Section Two presents information relating to the implementation of Basel 2.5; and
Section Three details responses in regard to Basel III.

1
In this report, the FSI is publishing the unedited responses received from jurisdictions. Jurisdictions are invited
to update their survey responses by submitting revised information to the Financial Stability Institute at:
[email protected].

1/58
Section One: Survey responses on Basel II implementation
1 2 3
Country Elements Status Year Remarks
Albania SA 3 2013 There is a fairly complete regulation on Pillar 3 (Market
FIRB 1 NA discipline) topics already in force i.e. “For the minimum
AIRB 1 NA requirements of disclosing information from banks and
foreign bank branches” (approved by decision no. 60,
BIA 3 2013
dated 29 August 2008 of the Supervisory Council of the
TSA 3 2013 Bank of Albania) that is partly in alignment with the
AMA 1 NA European Union directive 2006/48/EC. Even though the
P2 1 2014-2015 disclosure requirements are based on sound and reliable
P3 4 2014-2015 Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 outputs, some amendments to this
regulation are foreseen to be approved within 2014 and
will enter into force in 2015.
Angola SA Angola has not implemented Basel II. It is now preparing
FIRB regulations for discussion with the market.
AIRB
BIA
TSA
AMA
P2
P3
Armenia SA 4 2008 The Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 principles are largely
FIRB 5 NA implemented.
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 4 2008
TSA 4 2008
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2014
P3 4 2009
Bahamas SA 1 2014 In Q4 2013, the Central Bank officially rolled-out its formal
FIRB 5 NA Basel II and III Implementation Program. A Road Map was
AIRB 5 NA published and has been shared with the industry. In
addition, a Consultative Paper was released in Q4 2013
BIA 1 2014 on the Management of Operational Risk. For ease of
TSA 1 2014 reference, the Road Map reflecting the phase of
AMA 5 NA implementation for Basel II and III can be viewed at:
P2 1 2015 http://www.centralbankbahamas.com/download/07561220
P3 1 2015 0.pdf.
Bahrain SA 4 2008
FIRB 4 2008
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 4 2008

1
The following abbreviations are used in the table: Pillar 1 – credit risk: SA = standardised approach, FIRB =
foundation internal ratings-based approach, AIRB = advanced internal ratings-based approach; Pillar 1 –
operational risk: BIA = basic indicator approach, TSA = standardised/alternative standardised approach, AMA =
advanced measurement approaches; P2 = Pillar 2; P3 = Pillar 3. Relevant references can be found in the
Questionnaire in Annex 2.
2
Status indicators are as follows: 1 = draft regulation not published, 2 = draft regulation published, 3 = final rule
published, 4 = final rule in force, 5 = not applicable.
3
This column denotes the year in which the draft or final rule was or is expected to be published or when the final
rule was or will be in force. NA means that the jurisdiction is not planning to implement this component or is
planning to implement the component but does not know the year in which it will be implemented.

2/58
 TSA 4 2008
AMA 5 NA
P2 1 NA
P3 4 2008
Bangladesh SA 4 2010
FIRB 1 2015
AIRB 1 2016
BIA 4 2010
TSA 4 2010
AMA 1 2016
P2 4 2010
P3 4 2010
Barbados SA 1 * *Draft regulation not published - 2013; Final rule published
FIRB 5 NA - 2014; Final rule in force - 2015.
AIRB 5 NA **Draft regulation not published - 2014; Final rule
BIA 1 * published - 2014; Final rule in force - 2015.
TSA 1 *
AMA 5 NA
P2 2 **
P3 1 **
Belarus SA 4 2005 In pursuance of Pillar 2, the National Bank of the Republic
FIRB 5 NA of Belarus (NBRB) has developed:
AIRB 5 NA • Instructions on the organisation of the risk
BIA 4 2005 management system in banks, non-bank financial
institutions, banking groups, and bank holding
TSA 4 2009
companies (October 2012);
AMA 5 NA • Instructions on the organisation of the internal control
P2 4 2012-2014 system in banks, non-bank financial institutions,
P3 4 2013 banking groups, and bank holding companies
(November 2012);
• Recommendations on the methodology for internal
capital adequacy assessment in banks (November
2013);
• Revised recommendations on the methodology of the
NBRB’s on-site examination and risk level
assessment by the NBRB in banks and non-bank
financial institutions (March 2014); and
• Recommendations on the methodology of off-site
supervision (April 2014).
In pursuance of Pillar 3, NBRB has developed
“Instructions on the disclosure of information on activities
of banks, non-bank financial institutions, banking groups,
and bank holding companies” (January 2013), which
oblige banks to disclose among other things information
on corporate governance, description of risk management
and internal control systems, and secure functioning
requirements compliance (capital, liquidity, large
exposures etc.).
Belize SA Belize is still using Basel I. Belize will commence
FIRB discussion in 2015 on implementing Basel III.
AIRB
BIA
TSA
AMA
P2
P3
Bermuda SA 4 Jan 2009
FIRB 4 Jan 2009
AIRB 4 Jan 2009

3/58
 BIA 4 Jan 2009
TSA 4 Jan 2009
AMA 4 Jan 2009
P2 4 Jan 2009
P3 4 Jan 2009
Bhutan SA 5 NA
FIRB 5 NA
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 5 NA
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 5 NA
P3 5 NA
Bolivia SA 4 2005 La Ley de Bancos y Entidades Financieras no establece
FIRB 1 2015 aún el requerimiento de capital por riesgo operativo, sin
embargo, se avanzó en el pilar 2, mediante el
AIRB 1 2015
fortalecimiento de la metodología y procedimientos para
BIA 1 2015 la supervisión de riesgo operativo, basada en sanas
TSA 1 2015 prácticas.
AMA 1 2015 A partir de la futura promulgación de la "Ley de Servicios
P2 4 2008 Financieros" que sustituirá a la actual "Ley de Bancos", se
espera profundizar la aplicación de Basilea II y Basilea
P3 4 2012
III.”

The Banking Law has not yet established a requirement

for operational risk. However, there are improvements in
Pillar 2 through the enhancement of the procedures and
methodology for the supervision of operational risk based
on good practice. Our intention is that the new Financial
Services Act will deepen the implementation of both Basel
II and III when it replaces the current Banking Act.
Bosnia and SA 1 2016 We have finalised the Quantitative Impact Study (QIS).
Herzegovina FIRB 1 2016 The QIS included all banks in Bosnia and Herzegovina
AIRB 1 2016 (BiH) (27 commercial banks – from Federation of BiH and
Republika Srpska (RS), excluding 2 investment banks).
BIA 4 2009
The results of the QIS showed that the application of the
TSA 1 2016 new rules would not lead to a fall of the capital adequacy
AMA 1 2016 ratio in the banking sector in BiH (minimum adequacy
P2 1 2016 ratio prescribed by law is 12%). According to the
P3 1 2016 preliminary results of the QIS, the introduction of the
standardised approach for capital requirements for credit
risk under Basel II would not have a negative impact on
the capital adequacy ratio in the banking sector in BiH.
Botswana SA 2 31 Dec 2013 Bank of Botswana adopted a gradual approach to Basel
FIRB 5 NA II/III implementation commencing with a parallel-run of
AIRB 5 NA Basel I and Basel II simple approaches in 2014,
culminating in the adoption of the advanced approaches
BIA 2 31 Dec 2013
by qualifying banks in 2017. Full implementation of simple
TSA 2 31 Dec 2013 approaches will be in 2015.
AMA 5 NA
P2 2 31 Dec 2013
P3 2 31 Dec 2013
British Virgin SA 1 2015
Islands FIRB 5 NA
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 1 2015
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 1 2015-2017
P3 1 2015-2017

4/58
Cayman SA 4 2011
Islands FIRB 5 NA
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 4 2011
TSA 4 2011
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2013
P3 1 2014
Chile SA 1 2016 Basel II/III implementation requires an amendment to the
FIRB 5 NA Chilean Banking Act which must be approved by the
AIRB 5 NA Congress. It is not possible to assess when the new
regulatory framework will be approved.
BIA 1 2016
TSA 1 2016
AMA 5 NA
P2 1 2016
P3 1 2016
Chinese Taipei SA 4 2007
FIRB 4 2007
AIRB 4 2007
BIA 4 2007
TSA 4 2007
AMA 4 2007
P2 4 2007
P3 4 2007
Colombia SA 4 2005 Regarding operational risk, currently, Credit Institutions
FIRB 4 2004 are required to keep a database of operational risk events
AIRB 5 NA and they must recognise in their balance sheet only one
type of such events. On the other side, since 2012, with
BIA 1 2012
decrees 1548 and 1895, Pension Funds and Insurance
TSA 5 NA Companies that manage social security resources have to
AMA 5 NA accomplish the basic approach of Basel II for capital
P2 4 2005 requirements for operational risk.
P3 4 2000 Regarding credit risk Colombian provisioning system for
commercial and consumer or retail loans (more than 85%
of the total portfolio) are based on the estimation of
expected losses, as Basel II recommends it. Therefore,
provisions are calculated as the product of the probability
of default (PD), the loss given default (LGD) and the
exposure at default (EAD). This framework has been
implemented for more than 6 years. Furthermore,
Colombian provisioning system takes into account a
counter cyclical provisioning methodology. Nonetheless,
the credit risk RWA capital charges follow Basel I.
The credit, market and liquidity risk management
frameworks issued by the SFC, allow supervised
institutions to develop internal models that must not be
objected by the SFC in order to be implemented by the
respective supervised institution. However, up to date no
institution has implemented them yet.
Finally on Pillar 2, information on capital adequacy has
been released since January 2000; however, regulations
on the implementation of procedures for measuring,
monitoring and reporting risks (known as Risk
Management Systems or SARs, in Spanish) are in force
as follows: Market and Credit since 2002, Operational
since 2007 and Liquidity since 2009. It is deemed
important to mention also that each of the SARs has its
own structure; however all of them have the following
common elements: 1. Generalities: a) Definition of the
types of intermediaries for which the adoption of each

5/58
 system is mandatory, b) Definition of each risk, sources of
risk and identification of problems derivate from an
inadequate risk administration. 2. Phases of the risk
management process: a) Identification, b) Measuring, c)
Control or mitigation, and d) Following up or monitoring of
risks. 3. The minimum elements to be considered in each
risk management system: a) Policies, b) Procedures, c)
Adequate documentation and transmission of the content
of each SAR, d) Organisational structure, e) Control
organs, and f) Technical and technological infrastructure.
4. Annexes: Where methodological issues are detailed
and specific rules are incorporated. All the elements
integrating the SAR must be properly documented and
updated.
Currently, the SFC is working on strengthening those
guidelines to integrate and improve them, and to add
more risks, through a greater framework of rules of risk
management named Financial Risk Management System
(SARF, for its acronym in Spanish).
The supervision carried out by the SFC is conducted by
taking into account the minimum requirements established
in each of the SARs. This supervision goes beyond
compliance to the instructions given there, as the risks
management made by each supervised institution are
also assessed.
Moreover, one key element of the risk-based supervisory
framework of SFC, known as MIS (Marco Integral de
Supervisión, in Spanish), is to assess the soundness of
capital and the robustness of capital management
policies, methodologies, and practices through the
evaluation of specific criteria. In this regard, the criteria to
be taken into account allow SFC to assess the
effectiveness of the overall ICAAP on an entity-wide
basis, whether it is an individual bank or a financial
conglomerate.
Currently under MIS, the SFC is developing internal
guidance for supervisors to assess the effectiveness of
capital management in financial institutions taking into
account the international standards on ICAAP, risk
identification, measurement, and aggregation, and stress-
testing set primarily by the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision.
Congo, SA 5 2014 The Central Bank of Congo plans to implement Basel II
Democratic FIRB standardised approach for credit and operational risks in
Republic of the AIRB 2015.
BIA
TSA
AMA
P2
P3
Cook Islands SA 4 2013
FIRB 5 NA
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 1 2014
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2013
P3 5 NA
Costa Rica SA 4 2006* *Some aspects of the standardised approach have been
FIRB NA** adjusted based on the supervisory authority’s criteria. For
AIRB NA** example, the securitisation framework has not been

6/58
 BIA 4 2008 adopted since these operations are rarely carried out in
TSA NA** the financial entities. This topic may be addressed in the
AMA NA** future, when these operations begin to be more frequent.
**The Superintendencia General de Entidades
P2 1 Final rule to
Financieras (SUGEF) Strategic Plan does not consider
be published
adopting, in the medium to long term, the intermediate or
in 2015***
advanced approaches for credit risk and operational risk.
P3 1 2015**** But the SUGEF is considering accepting internal models
for market risk.
***Adoption of Pillar 2 is considered part of the process of
adopting a risk-based supervisory approach. The
particular emphasis regarding capital will be analysed by
the SUGEF as it refines its road map.
****Transparency framework includes disclosure of
several financial indicators; however, following a legal
resolution, the level of the capital adequacy indicator is
related to the entities’ financial irregularity status, which is
not public information. For this reason, no such indicator
or any specific data from which its result can be derived
may be disclosed to the general public. However, general
data are disclosed and the development of supplemental
soundness indicators supporting transparency without
conflicting with the legal framework is being assessed.
Curaçao and SA 1 2015 The draft regulation has not been published yet, but it has
Sint Maarten FIRB been discussed with the financial institutions and updated
AIRB based upon their comments. The regulation is planned to
be finalised and implemented in January 2015.
BIA 1 2015
An element of Pillar 3 regarding the publication of
TSA standardised financials was introduced by the Central
AMA Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS) in February
P2 2005 as “Provisions on the Disclosure of Consolidated
P3 Financial Highlights of Domestic Banking Institutions”.
Dominican SA 1 2015 Dates are subject to approval by the Monetary Board,
Republic FIRB 1 2015 which is the regulatory body of the Dominican Financial
AIRB 1 2015 System.
BIA 1 2015
TSA 3 2009
AMA 1 2015
P2 1 2015
P3 1 2015
Eastern SA 1 NA A decision has not been taken by the Eastern Caribbean
Caribbean FIRB 1 NA Central Bank (ECCB) regarding the possible
Central Bank AIRB 1 NA implementation of Basel II in the Eastern Caribbean
Currency Union (ECCU). A Steering Committee has been
BIA 1 NA
established to investigate the applicability of the
TSA 1 NA framework for the region and to propose a roadmap for
AMA 1 NA implementation.
P2 1 NA
P3 5 NA
Ecuador SA 2 2011
FIRB 1 2017
AIRB 1 2018
BIA 1 2016
TSA 1 2018
AMA 1 2020+
P2 1 2016+
P3 1 2016+
Egypt SA 4 2012 The Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) followed two core
FIRB 2 2010 principles for the implementation of Basel II: simplicity and
AIRB 2 2010 communication. Simplicity was required to remain

7/58
 BIA 4 2012 consistent with the varied levels of sophistication in banks’
TSA 2 2010 information and control systems and to ensure a smooth
AMA 2 2010 transition from existing regulations; and standardised
approaches are the logical consequence. Communication
P2 2 2011
was a core factor of success for a new regulatory
P3 4 2012 framework. CBE's implementation strategy focused on the
Standardised Approach and its related issues for credit
and market risks; and the Basic Indicator for operational
risk. In addition, some internal treatments were adopted to
suit the Egyptian banking environment while still adhering
to the conservative principles of the Basel II framework.
Pillar 1 – Credit risk: In 2010 the Draft Regulation
Published (Discussion Paper) was introduced to the
market including a brief overview about the Internal
Ratings-Based approach (IRB) with a definition for both
the Foundation and the Advanced IRB while the final rule
in force included only the Standardised Approach to give
banks room to fully digest this approach before moving to
the more advanced approaches.
Pillar 1 – Operational risk: In 2010 the Draft Regulation
Published (Discussion Paper) was introduced to the
market including a detailed overview about the
Standardised/Alternative Standardised Approach as well
as the Advanced Measurement Approaches while the final
rule in force included only the Basic Indicator Approach to
give banks room to fully digest this approach before
moving to the more advanced approaches.
Pillar 2 – As part of Pillar 2, the Supervisory Review and
Evaluation Process (SREP) is already enforced at the
Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) within the different
departments of the Supervision and Control sector.
Through its supervisory tools, the CBE’s different
supervisory departments, including the offsite and onsite
supervision, take the necessary actions for an adequate
and thorough review and evaluation of the Egyptian
banking sector including foreign branches operating in
Egypt. However, the Internal Capital Adequacy
Assessment Process (ICAAP) as part of the SREP were
introduced to the market during 2013. As for the risks not
captured in Pillar 1, namely interest rate risk in the
banking book, concentration and liquidity risks, Draft
Regulations (Discussion Papers) capturing these risks
were published in 2011. The Final Rule in that regard is
postponed for the time being until the Egyptian banking
sector digests the new Pillar 1 framework.
Pillar 3 – In Dec 2008, the Central Bank of Egypt (CBE)
introduced the new International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS), which were applied to all banks, in
addition to the CBE final regulation issued in Dec 2012,
where banks should disclose the detailed calculation of
their CAR elements in their financial statements
(disclosure notes). Furthermore, a corporate governance
regulation was issued in July 2011 providing the structure
through which the objectives of the company were set,
and the means of attaining those objectives and
monitoring performance were determined.
El Salvador SA 1 Dec.2015
FIRB 1 Dec 2017
AIRB 1 Dec 2019
BIA 1 Dec 2015
TSA 1 2017
AMA 1 2019
P2 1 Dec 2015

8/58
 P3 1 Dec 2015
Fiji SA 1 NA Pillar 1: The Reserve Bank of Fiji has not yet altered the
FIRB 1 NA current banking supervision policy statement (BSPS) on
AIRB 1 NA capital adequacy requirements to incorporate the
enhanced credit risk, market risk and operational risk
BIA 1 NA
methodologies outlined. However, other BSPSs address
TSA 1 NA these risks as follows: (1) The BSPS on capital adequacy
AMA 1 NA requirements sets a minimum total capital ratio of 12% for
P2 1 NA banks and 15% for credit institutions. Prior to 2010, these
P3 1 NA levels were set at 8% for banks and 10% for credit
institutions. The increase was made to institute a capital
buffer above the required level of capital. (2) The BSPS
on Minimum Requirements for the Management of
Operational Risk became effective from 30 June 2010 and
requires that each bank has in place a comprehensive
and effective operational risk management framework that
is commensurate to the size, complexity, nature and scale
of its operations. (3) A draft BSPS on Market Risks is
currently being reviewed internally. There are also plans
to review the capital adequacy requirements in the
medium term – towards Basel III.
Pillar 2: (1) The Reserve Bank of Fiji may, if the situation
is deemed appropriate, require banks to either inject
additional capital, limit capital appropriations or slow down
lending levels to ensure adequate capital is held by the
bank at all times. (2) The BSPS on Minimum
Requirements on Corporate Governance became
effective from 1 December 2007. The policy sets the
minimum requirements that promote sound corporate
governance practices for banks. (3) The BSPS on
Liquidity Risk Management Requirement for Banks is
aimed at encouraging banks to develop strong, effective,
comprehensive and more proactive liquidity risk
management policies to manage liquidity risks.
Pillar 3: (1) The BSPS on Disclosure Requirements for
Banks for financial year end on or after 1 December 1999
requires the annual disclosure of financial and other
information, both in relation to the bank and its parents or
associated persons. Included in the disclosure are
selected items from the balance sheet and profit and loss
statements, information on size and profitability, and
prudential information on capital adequacy and asset
quality. (2) The BSPS on Accountability and Disclosure
Guidelines on Interest Rates, Fees and Charges requires
full disclosure of all interest rates, fees and charges
relating to products and services offered in a standardised
format.
Gambia SA 1 NA Considering the technical complexity and financial burden
FIRB 1 NA on the banks, attention is currently focused on the
AIRB 1 NA implementation of the qualitative aspects of Basel II in
conjunction with the Basel Core Principles.
BIA 1 NA
TSA 1 NA
AMA 1 NA
P2 1 NA
P3 1 NA
Georgia SA 4 2013 Pillar 1 of the Basel II/III regulation that was officially
FIRB 5 NA published in October 2013 will be binding for commercial
AIRB 5 NA banks starting from June 30, 2014. Banks are required to
submit their ICAAP by September 30th 2014.
BIA 4 2013
TSA 4 2013
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2013

9/58
 P3 1 2015
Ghana SA 5 NA Following the FSAP report in 2010 which recommended
FIRB 5 NA embedding the risk culture in banks before embarking on
AIRB 5 Basel II, we have been implementing risk-based
supervision in banks since then. We plan to start the
BIA 5 NA
Basel II process later in 2014 or 2015 when we have
TSA 5 NA received a long term Advisor from the IMF. We will furnish
AMA 5 NA the program once this process kick starts.
P2 5 NA
P3 5 NA
Gibraltar SA 4 2007 As part of the European Union, Gibraltar transposes EU
FIRB 4 2007 directives.
AIRB 4 2007
BIA 4 2007
TSA 4 2007
AMA 4 2007
P2 4 2007
P3 4 2007
Guatemala SA 1 2015
FIRB 5 NA
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 5 NA
TSA 1 2015
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2013
P3 1 2015
Guernsey SA 4 2008 As a host supervisor, we initially adopted Basel II through
FIRB 1 NA employment of the straightforward standardised
AIRB 1 NA approaches and discouraged the IRB models at the local
level. The benefits of this approach are that (i) it has
BIA 4 2008
helped us to supervise capital planning on a consistent
TSA 4 2008 standardised approach for all banks and (ii) as a
AMA 1 NA supervisor in a small economy we have been able to
P2 4 2008 manage Basel II with our own internal resources without
the need to recruit high-powered and expensive
P3 1 NA
specialists to conduct model validation.
Guinea, SA In the Republic of Guinea, we have not implemented
Republic of FIRB Basel II, however, we are implementing a risk-based
AIRB supervisory framework, including operational risks. Also,
the new Banking Act specifies the requirements of Pillar 2.
BIA
TSA
AMA
P2 3 2014
P3
Guyana SA 1 TBD Under Pillar 2, the Bank of Guyana (the Bank) has
FIRB 5 NA implemented risk-based supervision.
AIRB 5 NA Under Pillar 3, the Bank has published 49 financial
indicators/ratios. The commercial banks are now required
BIA 1 TBD
to publish their quarterly reports.
TSA 1 TBD
AMA 5 NA
P2 1 TBD
P3 1 TBD
Haiti SA 1 NA The Central Bank of Haiti wishes to seek technical
FIRB 1 NA assistance from the IMF to assess the status of
AIRB 1 NA implementation of Basel I first and see how we can move
towards Basel II later.
BIA 1 NA
TSA 1 NA

10/58
 AMA 1 NA
P2 1 NA
P3 1 NA
Honduras SA 1 NA *Credit and Investment Risk Management Rule (2008),
FIRB 1 NA Operational Risk Management Rule and Integral Risk
AIRB 1 NA Management Rule (both in 2011).
BIA 1 NA
Pillar 1: No draft regulation has been issued establishing
TSA 1 NA capital requirements based on credit and operational risk
AMA 1 NA statistical methods. However, the current regulations have
P2 4 2008, made the following progress:
2011* • The current Capital Adequacy regulation establishes
P3 4 2012 a capital adequacy ratio of 10% minimum. Most of the
loan portfolios are weighted at 100%. Mortgages are
weighted at 50% and foreign currency loans to non-
foreign currency generators are weighted at 150%.
• The Operational Risk Management regulation, in
effect as of August 2011, establishes minimum
guidelines the supervised institutions must follow in
the design, development and application of their
operational risk management systems.
Pillar 2:
A. The Comisión Nacional de Bancos y Seguros (CNBS)
has the authority to require additional capital based on the
following regulations:
• Credit and Investment Risk Management Rule
(2008): Establishes that the CNBS has the power to
request additional generic provisions or additional
capital whenever it deems appropriate, should it
identify deficiencies in the management of these
risks.
• The Operational Risk Management Rule (2011)
grants the CNBS the authority to subsequently
require capital based on international standards and
in accordance with the situation of the entities.
• The Financial System Rule established that CNBS
may require a higher adequacy ratio than the
minimum when it is found that there is inadequacy of
the management processes and risk control by the
supervised institution that is necessary in accordance
with international best practice.
• (4) The Integral Risk Management Rule, in effect as
of August 2011, authorises the CNBS to set a capital
adequacy ratio or a solvency requirement higher than
the minimum required when, based on international
standards, the CNBS identifies important
weaknesses in the institution's risk management
systems.
B. As part of the supervisory process, the CNBS has
issued the following rules regarding the management of
other types of risks, which do not require additional
capital, but do set the necessary guidelines to determine
residual risk levels:
• The Integral Risk Management rule sets the
guidelines for assessing and managing credit,
liquidity, market, operational, legal, strategic and
reputational risks.
• The Liquidity Risk Management regulation (2010)
defines the standard and internal models, granting
the institutions the option of implementing an internal
model, if approved by the CNBS. The rule includes
stress scenarios and early warning indicators, and
empowers the CNBS to resolve whatever is not

11/58
 included in the rule, in accordance with best
international standards and practices.
• The Manual for Integral Risk-Based Supervision
considers a consolidated, integral and proactive risk-
based supervisory approach.
Pillar 3: The Integral Risk Management Rule (2011) and
Credit and Investment Risk Management Rule (2008)
require the institutions to disclose in their annual report,
website or other media the main issues related to their
risk management systems, including their objectives and
accomplishments. There was a change in the indicators to
be published by the supervised institutions (2012).
Iceland SA 4 2007
FIRB 4 2007
AIRB 4 2007
BIA 4 2007
TSA 4 2007
AMA 4 2007
P2 4 2007
P3 4 2007
Isle of Man SA 4 2008 If a bank wishes to adopt IRB or advanced measurement
FIRB 1 NA approaches, the Basel II published framework would be
AIRB 1 NA followed, in addition to using the approach of the
competent home supervisor for model approval (groups).
BIA 4 2008
There is no current use under these approaches. Pillar 3
TSA 4 2008 is not applicable as the Isle of Man only hosts subsidiaries
AMA 1 NA and branches of internationally active banks.
P2 4 2008
P3 5 NA
Jamaica SA 1 2016
FIRB 5 To be
determined
AIRB 5 To be
determined
BIA 1 2016
TSA 5 To be
determined
AMA 5 To be
determined
P2 1 2016
P3 1 2016
Jersey SA 4 2008 Pillars 1 and 2 were fully implemented in 2008.
FIRB 4 2008 Implementation rules for the advanced approaches permit
AIRB 4 2008 banks to use home regulator-approved models provided
that they can be demonstrated to be appropriate for
BIA 4 2008
Jersey (no current use). The scope of Pillar 3 states that it
TSA 4 2008 should be applied at consolidated level to internationally
AMA 4 2008 active banks. As such, it is not applicable to any bank in
P2 4 2008 Jersey and the Commission’s bank licensing policy makes
P3 NA it likely that this will remain the case. Hence, no
implementation of Pillar 3 is planned for Jersey entities,
although most fall within groups that make Pillar 3
disclosures at group level.
Jordan SA 4 2008 The Central Bank of Jordan (CBJ) considered the
FIRB 1 NA adoption of IFRS(7) as being equivalent to compliance
AIRB 1 NA with Pillar 3 of Basel II, noting that all banks in Jordan are
compliant with IFRS(7).
BIA 4 2008
TSA 3 2008
AMA 1 NA
P2 4 2010

12/58
 P3 4 2007
Kenya SA 5 NA
FIRB 5 NA
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 4 2013
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2013
P3 4 2013
Kosovo SA 2/4 2015 The definition of capital and the risk-weight categories
FIRB 5 NA were amended in 2012/13 in order to adopt the Basel II
AIRB 5 NA Standards, however they are not entirely harmonised yet.
Regarding the capital requirement for operational risk, the
BIA 2/4 2013
Basic Indicator Approach and the Standardised Approach
TSA 2/4 2013 have been applied since 2013. In addition, with the new
AMA 5 NA regulation issued in 2013 most of the Basel II disclosure
P2 2015 requirements of Pillar 3 are adopted; however, it is not yet
P3 2015 entirely harmonised.
Kuwait SA 4 2005
FIRB
AIRB
BIA 4 2009
TSA 4 2005
AMA
P2 4 2005
P3 4 2005
Kyrgyz SA 1 NA
Republic FIRB 1 NA
AIRB 1 NA
BIA 1 NA
TSA 1 NA
AMA 1 NA
P2 1 NA
P3 1 NA
Lebanon SA 4 2008 The Central Bank and the Banking Control Commission
FIRB 1 2015 (BCC) monitored a parallel-run period whereby banks
AIRB 1 2018 were asked to submit their CAR calculation according to
Basel I and Basel II at the same time. During this parallel-
BIA 4 2007
run period, banks conducted seven Quantitative Impact
TSA 1 2014 Studies.
AMA 1 2015 BCC has issued, so far, two ICAAP templates, the first
P2 4 2008/2010 one in October 2010 and the second one in June 2013.
P3 1 2014 Both ICAAP templates were submitted to BCC. As part of
the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP),
the BCC has developed a methodology for assessing
banks’ capital adequacy, known as CAAM (Capital
Adequacy Assessment Methodology).
Lesotho SA 1 2015 Lesotho is preparing to implement Basel II, the Central
FIRB 5 NA Bank of Lesotho has just finalised the implementation
AIRB 5 NA plan.
BIA 1 2015
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 1 2015
P3 1 2015
Liberia SA 4 2000 In keeping with the five-year strategic plan of the
FIRB 5 NA Regulation and Supervision Department of the Central
AIRB 5 NA Bank of Liberia (CBL), the CBL plans to develop an action

13/58
 BIA 5 NA plan for the adoption of Base II during 2014. However, the
TSA 5 NA Bank has included in the existing capital adequacy
AMA 5 NA regulations some important elements of Basel II with
respect to expanding the baskets of risk weighted assets
P2 4 2000
from 2 previously to 4 in keeping with the requirements of
P3 4 2005 Basel II.
Liechtenstein SA 4 2007
FIRB 4 2007
AIRB 4 2007
BIA 4 2007
TSA 4 2007
AMA 4 2007
P2 4 2007
P3 4 2007
Macao SAR, SA 2 2013 For Pillar 2 implementation, the supervisory review of
China FIRB 5 NA banks’ internal capital adequacy assessment process is
AIRB 5 NA under review and the relevant regulation has not yet been
drafted.
BIA 4 2011
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 1 NA
P3 4 2013
Macedonia, SA 4 2012
FYR FIRB 1 2015
AIRB 1 2015
BIA 4 2012
TSA 4 2012
AMA 1 2015
P2 4 2009
P3 4 2007
Madagascar SA 5 NA Pillar 1: Basel I is maintained but with inclusion of some
FIRB 5 NA approaches of Basel II Pillar 1 such as standardised
AIRB 5 NA approach simplified for risk sovereigns simplified and non-
international resident banks (Directive No 001/2006-CSBF
BIA 5 NA
of 13/10/2006 related to capital adequacy ratio).
TSA 5 NA According to Directive No 001/2000-CSBF of 01/02/2000
AMA 5 NA related to regulatory equity, the regulatory equity must be
P2 5 NA at any time at least equal to the minimum capital
P3 5 NA prescribed.

Application of pillar 2 “Supervisory Review process”

New legislation has been developed to give force to the
new prudential regulation:
• Directive No 006/2000-CSBF on 10/11/00 relating to
internal control of credit institutions
• Directive No 001/2006-CSBF on 13/10/06 relating to
solvency ratio of credit institutions
• Directive No 002/2006-CSBF on 13/10/06 relating to
provisioning risks of counterparty
• Directive No 001/2007-CSBF on 29/01/07 relating to
division of risks of credit institutions

In terms of capital requirements, we still remain in Basel 1

by developing the solvency ratio. Implementation and
revision of Pillars 2 and 3.
Malawi SA 4 2013 Banks in Malawi completed the implementation of Basel II
FIRB 5 NA on 31 December 2013 and formally migrated to Basel II
AIRB 5 NA on 1 January 2014. However, there are two banks that
have yet to meet revised minimum regulatory capital
BIA 4 2013

14/58
 TSA 4 NA requirements in line with Basel II; these banks have been
AMA 5 NA given a deadline of 30 June 2014 to be fully compliant.
P2 4 2013
P3 4 2013
Malaysia SA 4 2008 The dates refer to when the rules came into effect.
FIRB 4 2010
AIRB 4 2010
BIA 4 2008
TSA 4 2008
AMA 1 NA
P2 4 2010
P3 4 2010
Mauritius SA 4 2008 Foreign banks operating in Mauritius may use advanced
FIRB 5 NA approaches of Basel II for group reporting purposes.
AIRB 5 NA However, these banks should use the standardised
approaches for credit risk and the Basic Indicator
BIA 4 2008
Approach or the Standardised/Alternative Standardised
TSA 4 2008 Approach for operational risk for local regulatory reporting
AMA 4 2008 purposes.
P2 4 2010
P3 4 2008
Moldova SA 5 NA Currently, the National Bank of Moldova is applying a
FIRB 5 NA capital adequacy regime similar to the Basel I Capital
AIRB 5 NA Accord to all banks in the Republic of Moldova. The banks
shall have and maintain the risk weighted capital
BIA 5 NA
adequacy ratio at a level of at least 16 percent. Also, in
TSA 5 NA order to support the National Bank in the gradual
AMA 5 NA harmonisation with the EU Directive on capital
P2 5 NA requirements (CRD), reflecting Basel II/III rules for capital
P3 5 NA measurement and capital standards in the prudential
regulations, the National Bank intends to benefit from a
Twinning project and has recently developed a Twinning
Fiche, which has been sent to EC services in Brussels for
approval and, further, proceeding to the project itself.
Montenegro SA 4 2008
FIRB 1 2015
AIRB 1 2015
BIA 4 2008
TSA 4 2008
AMA 1 2015
P2 4 2012
P3 4 2012
Morocco SA 4 2006 In 2008, the Central Bank raised the minimum capital
FIRB 3 2010 requirement for all banks from 8% to 10%.
AIRB 3 2010
BIA 4 2006
TSA 4 2006
AMA 3 2010
P2 4 2007
P3 4 2007
Mozambique SA 4 2014 Final rule was published in 2013 and entered into force in
FIRB 5 NA 2014.
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 4 2014
TSA 4 2015
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2014
P3 4 2014

15/58
Namibia SA 4 2010
FIRB
AIRB
BIA 2010
TSA 4 2010
AMA
P2 4 2010
P3 4 2010
Nepal SA 1 2015 The final rule of the simplified standardised approach for
(simplified) credit risk has been in force since 2008 and the draft
FIRB 1 Not decided regulation of standardised approach for credit risk is likely
AIRB 1 Not decided to be published by 2015.
BIA 4 2008
TSA 1 2015
AMA 1 Not decided
P2 4 2008
P3 4 2008
New Zealand SA 4 2008 We offer an alternative standardised approach for
FIRB 4 2008 operational risk.
AIRB 4 2008
BIA 5 NA
TSA 4 2008
AMA 4 2008
P2 4 2008
P3 4 2008
Nigeria SA 2 2013 CAR returns are already being received from banks under
FIRB 1 Basel II rules in parallel with Basel I, until full adoption in
AIRB 1 June 2014.
BIA 2 2013
TSA 2 2013
AMA 1
P2 2 2013
P3 2 2013
Norway SA 4 2007
FIRB 4 2007
AIRB 4 2007
BIA 4 2007
TSA 4 2007
AMA 4 2007
P2 4 2007
P3 4 2007
Oman SA 4 2006
FIRB 1 NA
AIRB 1 NA
BIA 4 2006
TSA 1 NA
AMA 1 NA
P2 4 2011
P3 4 2007
Pakistan SA 4 2006 The State Bank of Pakistan has issued rules pertaining to
FIRB 3 2006 FIRB and AIRB; however, these approaches are
AIRB 3 2006 discretionary for banks and to date no bank has adopted
these advanced approaches for credit risk.
BIA 4 2006
TSA 4 2006
AMA 1 NA

16/58
 P2 4 2008
P3 4 2006
Panama SA 1 2014 Based on impact studies, it was decided to adopt a
FIRB 5 NA standardised approach for credit risk. In the roadmap on
AIRB 5 NA Basel II and III, the rule on operational risk management
has been in force since 2012. Capital requirements will be
BIA 1 2015
made in 2015.
TSA 1 2015
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2013
P3 1 2014
Papua New SA 1 2015 Draft prudential standards are in place and should be
Guinea FIRB 5 NA released by 2015. For credit risk, the Bank of Papua New
AIRB 5 NA Guinea (BPNG) has chosen to use the Simplified
Standardised Approach. BPNG will not adopt alternative
BIA 1 2015
approaches identified by BCBS having regard to the
TSA 5 NA current development of the economy and finance sector
AMA 5 NA and the availability and quality of data required to
P2 1 2015 implement capital modelling. For operational risk, BPNG
P3 1 2015 will apply only the Basic Indicator Approach as it is
recommended for institutions without significant
operations. Aspects of Pillar 2 and 3 are embedded in the
draft standards.
Paraguay SA 1 2016 La ley N° 861/96 establece una ponderación de los
FIRB 5 NA activos y contingentes. Estas ponderaciones difieren en
AIRB 5 NA algunos casos en sus porcentajes de lo previsto por
Basilea II. En diciembre del año 2012 se ha dictado una
BIA 1 2016
resolución que dispone la elaboración de una base
TSA 5 NA estadistica de eventos de perdidas por riesgo
AMA 5 NA operacional, la misma tiene un plazo maximo para su
P2 1 2016 adecuación a junio del 2014. Esta norma no prevé
P3 1 2016 requerimiento de capital adicional por el riesgo
operacional.

Pilar 2:
Se ha dictado pautas de gestión de riesgos de crédito,
mercado, liquidez, operacional y de gobierno corporativo.
Se cuenta con herramientas de supervisión de
Indicadores de Alerta Temprana y esquema de
cuadrantes que incorpora aspectos cualitativos y
cuantitativos que permite agrupar a las entidades
financieras en categorías; de acuerdo a ello, se definen
los esfuerzos de supervisión.
Fue creado un Comité de supervisión y de Seguimiento
de entidades para la evaluación de las entidades
conformado por Supervisores Extra- situ, In situ,
Estabilidad Financiera, Regulación y Fondo de Garantía.
El área de Estabilidad Financiera, con el apoyo de
consultores del FMI y Banco Mundial, elaboró un modelo
de Pruebas de Resistencia (Stress Test) que introduce
una serie de variables (baja producción agrícola por
factores climáticos, morosidad, incremento en nivel de
previsiones, etc).
El marco legal le otorga facultades al Supervisor de exigir
la reposición de capital para no descender en niveles por
debajo del mínimo requerido.
Si bien no se cuenta con facultades legales para exigir
capital adicional conforme al riesgo, las pautas de gestión
dictadas instan a los bancos a mantener un capital
conforme a su perfil de riesgo.

Pilar 3:
Publicación en web de Informe sobre Gobierno

17/58
 Corporativo, información financiera, reglamento del
directorio, políticas de dividendos, entre otros.
Divulgación de información sobre políticas, gestión,
procesos de riesgo operacional.
Publicación de Estados contables trimestrales y anuales
con sus respectivas notas explicativas, calificación
externa y auditoria externa.

Different risk weights for mortgage assets, as for domestic

and foreign currency. Specific risk weight for sovereign
bonds issued in foreign currency and others.
Law no 861/96 sets risk weights for assets and
contingents. These risk weights are different in some
respects from what is established in Basel II. In December
2012, a Resolution created a database for operational risk
losses which will be ready by June 2014. There is no
capital requirement for operational risk.
Pillar 2: There are guidelines for risk management
covering credit, market, liquidity and operational risks as
well as corporate governance.
Early warning indicators and risk maps with categories
that incorporate qualitative and quantitative indicators are
used so that supervisory efforts are appropriately applied.
Members of the Supervision and Monitoring Committee
are drawn from offsite and onsite supervision, financial
stability, and Regulation and Deposit Insurance areas.
The Financial Stability area, with the support of IMF and
World Bank consultants, has created a stress-testing
model that uses variables such as low agricultural
production due to weather factors, non-performing loans,
higher provisions etc.
The legal framework empowers the supervisor to demand
capital replenishment to avoid capital falling below the
required minimum.
There are no legal powers to require additional capital
according to the risk profile, but the risk management
guidelines suggest that banks should be appropriately
capitalised for their risk profile.
Pillar 3: Web publication of corporate governance reports,
financial information, board rules, dividend policy among
others.
Disclosure of operational risk information: policy,
management and processes.
Publication of quarterly and annual financial statements
with their notes, ratings given by rating agencies and
external audit.
Peru SA 4 2010 *Since 2008, the Peruvian Banking Law requires the
FIRB 4 2010 Board to assess bank capital adequacy according to the
AIRB 4 2010 bank’s risk profile (holding capital buffers to cover all
material risks);
BIA 4 2009
Since 2009, banks are required, by official letter, to
TSA 4 2009 prepare and submit an annual report of capital planning
AMA 4 2009 and internal capital assessment (with a detailed guide
P2 1 2014* provided by Superintendencia de Banca, Seguros y AFP
P3 1 2014** (SBS);
Since July 2012, Peruvian regulation requires banks to
hold additional capital to cover specific risks included in
Pillar 2, such as credit concentration risk and interest rate
risk in the banking book;
In 2012, the SBS developed and implemented a
comprehensive and detailed methodology for conducting
its supervisory review process of capital adequacy;
Since 2014, companies are requested to incorporate the
use of stress testing as part of their capital assessment.

18/58
 **The SBS’s Regulatory Department has to evaluate the
draft version elaborated by a SBS team in 2012.
Philippines SA 4 Published in *The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) continues to
2006 / Took monitor developments on these issues.
effect in 2007
FIRB 1 NA*
AIRB 1 NA*
BIA 4 Published in
2006 / Took
effect in 2007
TSA 4 Published in
2006 / Took
effect in 2007
AMA 1 NA*
P2 4 Published in
2009 / Took
effect in 2011
P3 4 Published in
2009 / Took
effect in 2011
Qatar SA 4 2006 The final rule was in force since January 2006 and
FIRB updated in 2009 in the case of the Standardised Approach
AIRB for credit risk and Basic Indicator Approach for
Operational Risk. Pillar 2 requirements were issued in
BIA 4 2006
March 2014. Banks are required to report the ICAAP on a
TSA yearly basis, starting with end-December 2013. The first
AMA of such reports are being received for evaluation by Qatar
P2 4 2014 Central Bank (QCB) in the first quarter of 2014. In case of
P3 1 Pillar 3, as stated in the earlier Survey for 2013, since all
banks are required to implement IFRS, most of the
disclosure requirements under Pillar 3, except for some of
the qualitative requirements, are compiled under IFRS. In
order to reduce the burden on banks in duplicating all the
requirements for banks, QCB together with an external
expert is for harmonising the requirements taking into
account the enhancements made by BCBS. A
consultative circular was issued for comments to banks,
and on receipt of the comments, a final draft is being
prepared for approval and will be issued to banks shortly.
Serbia SA 4 31 Dec 2011 All provisions of Basel II are enacted and in force, with the
FIRB 4 31 Dec 2011 exception of provisions governing securitisation, because
AIRB 4 31 Dec 2011 currently there is no legal basis for securitisation in Serbia
and banks do not have securitisation exposures in their
BIA 4 31 Dec 2011
portfolios.
TSA 4 31 Dec 2011
AMA 4 31 Dec 2011
P2 4 31 Dec 2011
P3 4 31 Dec 2011
Seychelles SA 5 NA Plans are in place for a complete study to be done in April
FIRB 5 NA 2014 (with the assistance of the International Monetary
AIRB 5 NA Fund) to assess the adoption of the most applicable
elements/components of Basel II and III. This will serve to
BIA 4 2010
formulate an action plan for the adoption and
TSA 5 NA implementation of Basel II and III and the most suitable
AMA 5 NA adoption of specifically tailored solutions. Accordingly,
P2 5 NA despite not having these elements in place at the time of
completion of this survey, plans are in place to establish
P3 5 NA these, as we are very keen and eager to move forward in
these areas.
Sri Lanka SA 4 2007 Considering the ongoing consolidation of the financial
FIRB 1 NA sector in Sri Lanka, the implementation of the Foundation
AIRB 1 NA Internal Ratings Based Approach and the Advanced

19/58
 BIA 4 2007 Internal Ratings Based Approach on computation of credit
TSA 4 2014 risk has been deferred.
AMA 1 NA
P2 4 2014
P3 4 2013
Tanzania SA 1 No decision has been taken on implementation of Basel
FIRB 1 II/III. Tanzania has been implementing some prerequisite
AIRB 1 aspects such as full implementation of Basel I,
compliance with the Basel Core Principles for Effective
BIA 1
Banking Supervision and implementing risk-based
TSA 1 supervision while continuing to study Basel II/III. However,
AMA 1 most aspects of Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 have been
P2 1 implemented through the RBS methodology and
P3 1 disclosure requirements regulations.
Thailand SA 4 2008
FIRB 4 2008
AIRB 4 2009
BIA 4 2008
TSA 4 2008
AMA 4 2012
P2 4 2010
P3 4 2008
Trinidad and SA 1 2014* *Indicates the year in which draft policy proposals are
Tobago FIRB 5 NA expected to be issued to the industry for consultation.
AIRB 5 NA These draft proposals will form the basis of Capital
Adequacy Regulations for the banking sector. Policy
BIA 1 2014*
proposals with respect to the implementation of the
TSA 1 2014* simpler approaches under the Basel II framework are
AMA 5 NA being finalised. The proposals will be used to develop
P2 1 2014* revised capital adequacy regulations for banks and non-
P3 1 2014 bank financial institutions. Notably, Pillars 2 and 3 of the
framework will only be addressed preliminarily in these
proposals. Full implementation will be considered at a
later date. It is expected that the policy proposals will be
issued for consultation by the end of fiscal 2014.
Tunisia SA 1 NA Bank governance rules were instituted by the Central
FIRB NA Bank of Tunisia with the aim of: (1) focusing the Board of
AIRB NA Directors on their core roles related to risk management
surveillance strategy; (2) introducing more rigorous criteria
BIA NA
for the designation of directors while requiring the
TSA 1 NA designation of independent directors and directors
AMA NA representing the interest of minority shareholders; (3)
P2 1 NA endowing the Board of Directors with independent support
P3 1 NA and assistance structures (an executive lending
committee, a risk committee, and a permanent internal
audit committee).
In March 2013, the staff of the Banking Supervision
department was increased by the recruitment of 12 onsite
and offsite staff in line with Pillar 2 requirements for
enhanced supervisory capabilities and resources.
The following issues have been identified as prerequisites
for the adoption of Basel II accord approaches: (1) review
of banking supervision reporting system; (2) enhancement
of supervisory process through risk-based supervision
and an early warning system; (3) upgrading of supervisory
capabilities, especially onsite supervision resources and
procedures.
These areas are included in a technical assistance
programme that was conducted in cooperation with IMF
experts during 2013.
Turks and SA 1 To be Prefatory to implementation of Basel II, the Financial

20/58
Caicos Islands determined Services Commission has begun a programme to
FIRB strengthen its regulatory framework through among other
AIRB things, legislative overhaul and improving compliance with
the Core Principles.
BIA
To be
TSA 1
determined
AMA
To be
P2 1
determined
To be
P3 1
determined
Uganda SA 5 NA Bank of Uganda (BoU) uses the Basel I Capital Adequacy
FIRB 5 NA Framework but Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 aspects of Basel II
AIRB 5 NA have been embedded in the supervisory process. Pillar 3
issues are covered in the Financial Institutions Act 2004
BIA 5 NA
and the Implementing Regulations/Guidelines.
TSA 5 NA
AMA 5 NA
P2 2 2010
P3 2 2004
United Arab SA 4 2009
Emirates FIRB 2 2012
AIRB 5 NA
BIA 4 2009
TSA 4 2009
AMA 5 NA
P2 4 2009
P3 4 2009
Uruguay SA 4 Dec 2012 *The first self-assessments of capital adequacy of five
FIRB 5 NA institutions were received in January 2013. During 2014,
AIRB 5 NA the rest of the financial institutions will present their self-
assessments of capital adequacy.
BIA 4 Dec 2012
TSA 1 2015 Pillar 1: Not intended to use internal models for credit risk.
AMA 5 NA Pillar 2: Concerning self-assessment of capital adequacy,
P2 1 * there is a non-published draft and the other aspects of
P3 1 2014 Pillar 2 are already in force.
Pillar 3: Audited financial statements of banks with notes
are published on an annual basis. The remaining aspects
of Pillar 3 will be implemented during 2014.
Vietnam SA 1 2014
FIRB 1 2014
AIRB 1 2018
BIA 1 2014
TSA 1 2015
AMA 1 2018
P2 1 2015
P3 1 2015
West African SA 1 NA Final dates may be known soon when the proposals made
Monetary FIRB 1 NA by the working group will be adopted by the Central Bank
Union AIRB 1 NA authorities.
4
(WAMU )
BIA 1 NA
TSA 1 NA
AMA 1 NA

4
Countries represented by WAMU are Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo.

21/58
 P2 1 NA
P3 1 NA
Zambia SA 1 2013
FIRB 1 Not yet
decided
AIRB 1 Not yet
decided
BIA 1 2013
TSA 1 Not yet
decided
AMA 1 Not yet
decided
P2 1 2013
P3 1 2013
Zimbabwe SA 3 2011 The Reserve Bank adopted a pillar by pillar approach to
FIRB 2 2011 Basel II implementation. By 2008, Pillar 3 and certain
AIRB 2 2011 elements of Pillar 2 had been implemented. The
operational risk framework was the first to be
BIA 3 2011
implemented followed by market risk charges. In 2011,
TSA 3 2006 the Reserve Bank issued a comprehensive guideline
AMA 2 2011 covering all the pillars.
P2 2 2011
P3 4 2008

22/58
Section Two: Survey responses on Basel 2.5 implementation
1 2 3
Country Elements Status Year Remarks
Albania Rev P1 1 NA
Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 1 NA
Angola Rev P1 Angola has not implemented Basel II. It is now preparing
Suppl P2 regulations for discussion with the market.
Rev P3
Mkt risk
Armenia Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Bahamas Rev P1 1 NA
Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Bahrain Rev P1 4 2012
Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 4 2012
Mkt risk 4 2012
Bangladesh Rev P1 1 2014
Suppl P2 1 2015
Rev P3 1 2014
Mkt risk 1 2016
Barbados Rev P1 1 * *Draft regulation not published - 2013; Final rule
Suppl P2 1 ** published - 2014; Final rule in force - 2015.
Rev P3 1 ** **Draft regulation not published - 2014; Final rule
Mkt risk 2 *** published - 2014; Final rule in force - 2015.
***Final rule published - 2013; Final rule in force - 2014.
The Market Risk Amendment has been officially
implemented. As at 31 March 2014 licensees will be
required to report capital for market risk under the
standardised approach.
Belarus Rev P1 5 Banks in the Republic of Belarus do not have
Suppl P2 5 securitisation exposures in their portfolios and they do not
Rev P3 5 use internal model approach.
Mkt risk 5
Belize Rev P1 Belize is still using Basel I. Belize will commence
Suppl P2 discussion in 2015 to implement Basel III.

1
The following abbreviations are used in the table to summarise the BCBS enhancements to the Basel II
framework: Rev P1 = revisions to Pillar 1; Suppl P2 = supplemental Pillar 2 guidance; Rev P3 = revisions to
Pillar 3. Revisions to the Basel II market risk framework: Mkt risk = revisions to the Basel II market risk
framework. Relevant references can be found in the Questionnaire in Annex 2.
2
Status indicators are as follows: 1 = draft regulation not published; 2 = draft regulation published; 3 = final rule
published; 4 = final rule in force; 5 = not applicable.
3
This column denotes the year in which the draft or final rule was or is expected to be published or when the final
rule was or will be in force. NA means that the jurisdiction is not planning to implement this component or is
planning to implement the component but does not know the year in which it will be implemented.

23/58
 Rev P3
Mkt risk
Bermuda Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Bhutan Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Bolivia Rev P1 1 Si bien no está completo el Pilar I, se ha logrado avanzar
Suppl P2 1 en el Pilar II, considerando que no es un prerrequisito el
Rev P3 1 primero.
Even though Pillar 1 implementation is not complete, we
Mkt risk
1 are making progress on Pillar 2, given that the former is
not a precondition for the latter.
Bosnia and Rev P1 1 2016 The compliance with CRD Directive 2010/76 is finalised
Herzegovina Suppl P2 1 2016 regarding remuneration policies and practice, assessment
Rev P3 1 2016 of the suitability of management board, and diligence of
the management board. Those decrees are implemented.
Mkt risk 1 2016
Botswana Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
British Virgin Rev P1 1 2015
Islands Suppl P2 1 2015
Rev P3 1 2015
Mkt risk 1 2015
Cayman Rev P1 4 2011
Islands Suppl P2 4 2013
Rev P3 1 2014
Mkt risk 4 2011
Chile Rev P1 1 2016
Suppl P2 1 2016
Rev P3 1 2016
Mkt risk 1 2016
Chinese Taipei Rev P1 4 2012
Suppl P2 4 2012
Rev P3 4 2011
Mkt risk 4 2012
Colombia Rev P1 5 NA Colombian regulation allows the internal models approach
Suppl P2 5 NA for credit risk, market risk and liquidity risk. However, no
Rev P3 5 NA institution has yet to implement it.
Regarding Pillar 2 changes, they do not apply in
Colombia. As mentioned before, all the SFC’s supervised
Mkt risk 5 NA institutions must apply standardised models (SARs) for
the assessment of the different risks.
Congo, Rev P1 Not planned.
Democratic Suppl P2
Republic of the Rev P3
Mkt risk
Cook Islands Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Costa Rica Rev P1 1 NA* *Financial sector entities have not been involved in

24/58
 Suppl P2 1 NA** securitisation operations and, therefore, the relevant
Rev P3 1 NA*** standardised approach has not been adopted. This topic
Mkt risk 1 NA**** may be addressed in the future, if such activities begin to
be more frequent.
**While there are no securitisation activities at present,
issuance of prudential provisions has been considered so
that in the event that such activities did occur, financial
sector entities could take a more active role in
securitisation processes. SUGEF Resolution 13,
Regulation on Securitisation and Trust Risk Management
was issued in October 2010.
***As securitisation activities become more frequent,
future improvements to the relevant transparency
framework will be assessed.
****Financial sector entities determine their market risk
capital charge based on a historical VaR model
developed by the supervisor. The SUGEF is considering
changing this approach, in order to allow the use of
internal models for market risk.
Curaçao and Rev P1 5 NA
Sint Maarten Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Dominican Rev P1 5 NA Revisions to the Basel 2.5 framework are not considered
Republic Suppl P2 5 NA relevant for implementation in the Dominican Republic,
Rev P3 5 NA given that no bank has significant securitisation
exposures. Therefore, banks have not adopted the
Mkt risk 5 NA
internal models approach to calculate changes in market
risk capital.
Eastern Rev P1 5 NA A decision has not been taken by the Eastern Caribbean
Caribbean Suppl P2 5 NA Central Bank (ECCB) regarding the possible
Central Bank Rev P3 5 NA implementation of Basel II in the Eastern Caribbean
Currency Union (ECCU). A Steering Committee has been
Mkt risk 5 NA
established to investigate the applicability of the
framework for the region and to propose a roadmap for
implementation.
Ecuador Rev P1 1 2016
Suppl P2 1 2017+
Rev P3 1 2017+
Mkt risk 1 2017
Egypt Rev P1 4 2012 Revisions to Pillar 1 – Credit Risk: the main critical
Suppl P2 2 2011 enhancement introduced in the Basel 2.5 framework was
Rev P3 4 2012 eliminating the single "A" required for eligible guarantors
under the Basel II framework, while requiring that a
Mkt risk 2 2010
guarantor – other than sovereigns, PSEs, banks, and
securities firms – be externally rated was not included in
the Final Rule in force, as the CBE preferred to stick to
the more conservative practice introduced under the
Basel II framework.
Revisions to Pillar 1 – Capital structure – Own Funds: all
regulatory adjustments that were introduced in Basel 2.5
were taken into consideration in the Final Rule in force
and according to the gradual implementation dates set by
the Basel Committee.
Supplemental Pillar 2 guidance: the main issues covered
under this guidance are mainly to supplement Pillar 2
under Basel II with respect to banks’ firm-wide risk
management and capital planning processes; those
issues are already taken into consideration in the Draft
Regulations published (Discussion Papers) related to
Pillar 2, whereby banks are required to have in place
appropriate and approved internal policies and

25/58
 procedures that identify their risk appetite and limits
regarding liquidity, concentration as well as interest rate
risks in the banking book, in addition to reliable systems
to measure, monitor and manage those risks and to apply
stress testing and contingency plans to address any worst
case scenarios in that regard.
Revisions to the Basel II market risk framework: most of
the revisions in the Basel 2.5 framework were directly
related to the internal models approach. Such revisions
were not taken into consideration due to the CBE’s
strategy according to which it was decided to postpone
the implementation of this approach (introduced in the
draft regulation published based on Basel II framework)
until the Egyptian banking sector digests the standardised
approach.
El Salvador Rev P1 1 NA Given its market characteristics and because
Suppl P2 1 NA securitisation is not sufficiently developed in the country,
Rev P3 1 NA EI Salvador is not implementing these aspects of the
framework.
Mkt risk 1 NA
Fiji Rev P1 1 NA A draft Banking Supervision Policy Statement that
Suppl P2 1 NA addresses market risk has been drafted for internal
Rev P3 1 NA review and is expected to be published in the short term.
There are also plans to revise the capital adequacy
Mkt risk 1 NA requirements in the medium term – towards Basel III.
Gambia Rev P1 1 NA
Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 1 NA
Georgia Rev P1 5 Trading book is practically non-existent in Georgian
Suppl P2 5 commercial banking sector.
Rev P3 5
Mkt risk 5
Ghana Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Gibraltar Rev P1 4 2011 As part of the EU, Gibraltar transposes all EU directives
Suppl P2 4 2011 including those dealing with Basel requirements i.e. the
Rev P3 4 2011 Capital Requirements Directive and Regulations.
Mkt risk 4 2011
Guatemala Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 1 2014
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Guernsey Rev P1 1 NA There is an absence of any material trading book or
Suppl P2 1 NA securitisation activities in Guernsey and for this reason
Rev P3 1 NA Basel 2.5 has not been implemented.
Mkt risk 1 NA
Guinea, Rev P1 Currently, there are no plans yet.
Republic of Suppl P2
Rev P3
Mkt risk
Guyana Rev P1 1 TBD
Suppl P2 1 TBD
Rev P3 1 TBD
Mkt risk 1 TBD
Haiti Rev P1 1 NA

26/58
 Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 1 NA
Honduras Rev P1 1 NA The CNBS reformed the transparency rules, requiring
Suppl P2 1 NA Supervised Institutions to publish additional information
Rev P3 4 2013 quarterly (2013). The CNBS estimates it will issue the
market risk rule in 2014.
Mkt risk 3 2014
Iceland Rev P1 4 2011-2013 As of 2014, Iceland will have fully implemented Directives
Suppl P2 3 2014 2009/111/EC (CRD II) and 2010/76/EU, which cover
Rev P3 3 2014 Basel 2.5.
Mkt risk 3 2014
Isle of Man Rev P1 1 2014-2018 Revisions to Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are being considered as
Suppl P2 1 2014-2018 part of the work on Basel III implementation.
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Jamaica Rev P1 1 2016-2017
Suppl P2 1 2016-2017
Rev P3 1 2016-2017
Mkt risk 1 2016-2017
Jersey Rev P1 Additional Pillar 2 guidance was issued in 2011 that
Suppl P2 2 2011/2013 addresses the most relevant parts of the supplemental
Rev P3 NA guidance and further guidance has been issued that
addresses most of the remaining matters in 2013. The
Mkt risk
Pillar 1 and market risk revisions are being considered
together with Basel III but drafts have not been produced
and no timeline has been established.
Jordan Rev P1 1 NA
Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 1 NA
Kenya Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 4 2013
Mkt risk 5 NA
Kosovo Rev P1
Suppl P2
Rev P3
Mkt risk
Kuwait Rev P1 4 2013
Suppl P2 4 2009
Rev P3 4 2013
Mkt risk 4 2013
Kyrgyz Rev P1 1 NA
Republic Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 1 NA
Lebanon Rev P1 4 2011 In the light of the Supplemental Pillar 2 Enhancements
Suppl P2 4 2010 issued by the BCBS in July 2009, the BCC took the
Rev P3 1 2014 following regulatory initiatives:
Mkt risk 1 NA • asked banks to conduct several stress-testing
exercises, one on interest rate risk, and several
others on credit risk (related to loans granted in some
unstable countries).
• published a directive, in December 2009, on
enhancing risk management practices in banks and
other financial institutions.
The Central Bank of Lebanon (BDL) issued additional

27/58
 guidelines on corporate governance, in April 2011,
requiring banks to establish: (1) a Board Risk Committee
with a minimum of three Board Members including a
Chairman for this committee who should be independent;
(2) a Board Audit Committee with a minimum of three
Non-Executive Board Members including a Chairman for
this committee who should be independent.
In December 2012, the Bank issued a regulation on credit
concentration limits including lending limits to borrowers
and groups of connected borrowers in Lebanon and
abroad and, in January 2013, it issued a circular requiring
banks to have a compliance department.
Lesotho Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Liberia Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Liechtenstein Rev P1 4 2011
Suppl P2 4 2011
Rev P3 4 2011
Mkt risk 4 2011
Macao SAR, Rev P1 5 NA As Macao banks' business is rather traditional without any
China Suppl P2 5 NA securitisation or significant trading, there is not yet a
Rev P3 5 NA revision plan.
Mkt risk 5 NA
Macedonia, Rev P1 5 NA The enhancements and revisions of the Basel II
FYR Suppl P2 5 NA framework are not relevant for our banking system.
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Madagascar Rev P1 5 NA The transition to Basel II can only be progressive for a
Suppl P2 5 NA country like Madagascar since certain conditions must be
Rev P3 5 NA met before applying full Basel II:
Mkt risk 5 NA • achievement of full compliance with 29 core
principles;
• capacity-building in terms of both quality and
quantity;
• preparation of the local environment;
• developing human resources in quantity and quality
in order to practice more intensive monitoring;
• arbitration between the need for security and the cost
of building equity;
• continuation of the assessment phase (data
collection, dialogue with banks); and
• setting a road map for the implementation of Basel II.
Malawi Rev P1 5 NA Stress testing guidelines were issued in 2013 and came
Suppl P2 5 NA into force on 1 January 2014.
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Malaysia Rev P1 1 NA The Basel 2.5 enhancement package, which focuses on
Suppl P2 1 NA strengthening capital requirements for trading book and
Rev P3 1 NA complex securitisation exposures, has yet to be fully
implemented in Malaysia, and is not expected to be an
Mkt risk 1 NA
immediate priority for Malaysia. Although trading and
securitisation markets and activities have developed
significantly in recent years, market structures remain
relatively less complex with risks remaining at

28/58
 manageable levels (e.g. there are no re-securitisation
structures in Malaysia). Nonetheless, the following
elements of the package have already been implemented:
Pillar 1 – requirement for banks to conduct more rigorous
credit analysis on externally rated securitisation
exposures (implemented in 2009); Pillar 2 – guidance to
address weaknesses in risk management process (the
Bank issued guidance on risk governance in 2013 which
among others, clarifies the role of the board, senior
management and risk management control functions in
managing risk at a firm-wide level); and Pillar 3 –
enhancements on disclosures related to securitisation
exposures held in the banking book (implemented in
2010).
Mauritius Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Moldova Rev P1 5 NA Currently, the National Bank of Moldova is applying a
Suppl P2 5 NA capital adequacy regime similar to the Basel I Capital
Rev P3 5 NA Accord to all banks in the Republic of Moldova. The
banks shall have and maintain the risk weighted capital
Mkt risk 5 NA
adequacy ratio at a level of at least 16 percent. Also, in
order to support the National Bank in the gradual
harmonisation with the EU Directive on capital
requirements (CRD), reflecting Basel II/III rules for capital
measurement and capital standards in the prudential
regulations, the National Bank intends to benefit from a
Twinning project and has recently developed a Twinning
Fiche, which has been sent to EC services in Brussels for
approval and, further, proceeding to the project itself.
Montenegro Rev P1 1 2015
Suppl P2 1 2015
Rev P3 1 2015
Mkt risk 1 2015
Morocco Rev P1 5 The central bank published in 2010 guidelines relating to
Suppl P2 4 2010 stress tests practices for all banks. In 2010, the central
Rev P3 5 bank introduced stressed VaR requirements into market
risk internal models.
Mkt risk 3 2010
Mozambique Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Namibia Rev P1 1
Suppl P2 1
Rev P3 1
Mkt risk 1
Nepal Rev P1 1 2015 An ICAAP guideline for the commercial banks has been
Suppl P2 2 2012 issued in 2012 as supplemental Pillar 2 guidance.
Rev P3 1 2015
Mkt risk 1 2015
New Zealand Rev P1 5 NA As New Zealand banks have low exposure to securitised
Suppl P2 5 NA assets, we do not intend to implement the 2009
Rev P3 5 NA enhancements and revisions to the Basel II framework for
the time being.
Mkt risk 5 NA
Nigeria Rev P1 5 We have issued in 2013 guidance notes on market risk in
Suppl P2 5 line with Basel II rules.
Rev P3 5

29/58
 Mkt risk 5
Norway Rev P1 4 2011
Suppl P2 4 2011
Rev P3 4 2011
Mkt risk 4 2011
Oman Rev P1 1 NA
Suppl P2 1 NA
Rev P3 1 NA
Mkt risk 1 NA
Pakistan Rev P1 1 2015 Basel 2.5 is not relevant in the absence of internal model
Suppl P2 1 2015 based approach of Market Risk and Securitisation
Rev P3 1 2015 exposures. Moreover, once the BCBS revises the market
risk framework, SBP would implement the same
Mkt risk 1 2015 accordingly.
Panama Rev P1 1 2014
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 1 2014
Papua New Rev P1 5 NA
Guinea Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Paraguay Rev P1 5 NA Dada las caracteristicas del mercado financiero
Suppl P2 5 NA paraguayo las modificaciones establecidas en Basilea II.5
Rev P3 5 NA no fueron consideradas.
Mkt risk 5 NA
Peru Rev P1 1 2013 *The SBS is evaluating the “Fundamental review of the
Suppl P2 1 2014 trading book: a revised market risk framework”, issued by
Rev P3 1 2014 Basel Committee in October 2013.
Mkt risk 1 2015*
Philippines Rev P1 1 2015 All enhancements under Basel 2.5 will be covered under
Suppl P2 1 2015 the Basel III implementation.
Rev P3 1 2015
Mkt risk 1 2015
Qatar January Enhancements issued by the BCBS have been
Rev P1 4
2014 incorporated in the Basel III Circular issued to banks in
January January 2014.
Suppl P2 4 All enhancements under Pillar 3 will be incorporated in
2014
Rev P3 1 the regulations to be issued to banks.
Mkt risk January
2014
Serbia Rev P1 1 To be Basel 2.5 (as standards related mainly to market risk and
defined securitisation) is of lesser significance for Serbia than
Suppl P2 1 To be Basel II and Basel III. Currently, there is no law on
defined securitisation in Serbia and banks do not have securitised
Rev P3 1 To be exposures in their portfolios. Moreover, banks are not
defined using the Internal Models Approach – they still use the
Standardised Approach and market risk is not a
Mkt risk 1 To be
significant risk (currently, only 1.8% of all capital
defined
requirements are accredited to market risks in the
banking sector in Serbia). Therefore, Basel 2.5 will be
implemented with the Basel III-compliant regulatory
framework.
Seychelles Rev P1 5 NA Please see previous comments. Plans are being made to
Suppl P2 5 NA move in this direction.
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA

30/58
Sri Lanka Rev P1 1 NA Exposure to market risk is very low in Sri Lanka’s banking
Suppl P2 1 NA sector and securitisation exposures are not significant.
Rev P3 1 NA The Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) has decided to
implement the Basel III framework along with Basel II.
Mkt risk 1 NA
Tanzania Rev P1 1 Same as in Basel II.
Suppl P2 1
Rev P3 1
Mkt risk 1
Thailand Rev P1 1 NA* *Basel 2.5 – Pillar 1 requirement is considered not to be
Suppl P2 1 NA** significantly relevant for implementation in the Thailand
Rev P3 1 NA* context as Thai banks do not have securitisation and re-
securitisation exposures. Moreover, Thailand has
Mkt risk 1 NA*
insignificant market risk exposures using the internal
models approach (IMA). The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is
considering whether to incorporate some parts of Pillar 1
requirements into the current market risk framework.
**Given the principle-based nature of the BOT’s Pillar 2
guideline, the material risks faced by banks operating in
Thailand, which are mainly those arising from lending
activities, and the current supervision framework adopted
by the BOT’s Supervision Group, the BOT currently
deems that the issues raised in the supplemental Pillar 2
guideline can be sufficiently addressed under the current
Pillar 2 guideline and the examination practices, without a
need to issue a supplemental Pillar 2 guideline. The BOT
may issue a guideline if there is a need to strengthen the
implementation.
Trinidad and Rev P1 5 NA As stated earlier, draft policy proposals regarding the
Tobago Suppl P2 5 NA implementation of the Basel II framework are expected to
Rev P3 5 NA be issued to the industry for consultation by the end of
2014. With respect to revisions to the Basel II market risk
Mkt risk 5 NA
framework, Trinidad and Tobago is considering
maintaining its current treatment of market risk, which
aligns with the Basel I Market Risk Amendment (originally
released in January 1996 and modified in September
1997). These capital charges for market risk were only
introduced in 2008. Moreover, an amendment to the
framework is not being proposed at this time since
licensed financial institutions are generally not involved in
complicated trading securities which attract a large
proportion of market risk.
Tunisia Rev P1 NA
Suppl P2 NA
Rev P3 NA
Mkt risk NA
Turks and To be
Rev P1 1
Caicos Islands determined
To be
Suppl P2 1
determined
To be
Rev P3 1
determined
To be
Mkt risk 1
determined
Uganda Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
United Arab Rev P1 5 NA Securitisation exposures are considered immaterial in
Emirates Suppl P2 2 2012 UAE banks’ portfolios. Market risk exposures are
Rev P3 2 2012 insignificant and internal models are currently not used for

31/58
 Mkt risk 5 NA that reason. The Central Bank of UAE (CBUAE) will work
on new market risk regulations once the BCBS has
released the final set of rules on the fundamental review
of the trading book. However, banks in the UAE are
implicitly expected to abide by the Basel
recommendations in the absence of local regulations.
Uruguay Rev P1 5 NA According to market characteristics and because
Suppl P2 5 NA securitisation is not very developed in our country, we are
Rev P3 5 NA not looking into these aspects. In particular, the
derivatives market is not very developed, so a review of
Mkt risk 5 NA counterparty credit risk is not required.
Vietnam Rev P1 5 NA
Suppl P2 5 NA
Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
West African Rev P1 5 NA
Monetary Suppl P2 5 NA
Union (WAMU) Rev P3 5 NA
Mkt risk 5 NA
Zambia Rev P1 1 2013 The draft regulations for Pillar 1 have already been
Suppl P2 1 2013 finalised; hence, revisions to include Basel 2.5 for Pillar 1
Rev P3 1 2013 will be done later. Revisions for Pillars 2 and 3 that are
Mkt risk 1 2013 relevant for the jurisdiction will be incorporated.
Zimbabwe Rev P1 1 2015 Currently there is a securitisation guideline in place which
Suppl P2 1 2015 shall be revised to incorporate Basel 2.5 aspects. The
Rev P3 1 2015 disclosure framework will also be reviewed in line with
international developments, informed partly by lessons
Mkt risk 1 2015
from the global financial crisis.

32/58
Section Three: Survey responses on Basel III implementation
1 2 3
Country Elements Status Year Remarks
Albania Liq (LCR) 1 2015-2016
Def cap 1 2014-2015
Risk cov 1 2016-2017
Conserv 1 2016-2017
C-cycl 1 2016-2017
LR 1 2016-2017
D-SIBs 1 2016-2017
G-SIBs 1 NA
Angola Liq (LCR) Angola has not implemented Basel III. It is now
Def cap preparing the regulations for discussion with the
Risk cov market.
Conserv
C-cycl
LR
D-SIBs
G-SIBs
Armenia Liq (LCR) 1 2015
Def cap 2 2013
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 1 2015
C-cycl 1 2015
LR 1 2015
D-SIBs 1 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Bahamas Liq (LCR) 1 2016 The central bank has already implemented some
Def cap 1 2014 aspects of the Basel III capital framework with respect
Risk cov 5 NA to its commercial banks (with effect from 1 January
Conserv 1 2014 2013). Specifically, (i) the phasing-in of the new capital
C-cycl 1 2014 definition for CET1, Additional Tier 1, and Tier 2; and
(ii) the phasing-out of capital instruments that no longer
LR 1 2015
qualify as CET1, Additional Tier 1, or Tier 2 capital.
D-SIBs 1 2015
G-SIBs 5 NA
Bahrain Liq (LCR) 1 2015 The Central Bank of Bahrain (CBB) has issued a
Def cap 2 2013/2014 consultation paper in December 2013 to all
Risk cov 2 2013/2014 conventional bank licensees on amendments to
Conserv 2 2013/2014 Module CA (Capital Adequacy) of the CBB Rulebook
C-cycl 1 2015 Volume 1. The CBB also issued a Basel III consultation
paper on the definition of capital, risk coverage, and
LR 2 2014
capital conservation buffer in May 2014 to all Islamic
D-SIBs 1 2015

1
The following abbreviations are used in the table: Liq = liquidity standard; Def cap = definition of capital; Risk
cov = risk coverage; Conserv = capital conservation buffer; C-cycl = countercyclical capital buffer; LR = leverage
ratio.
2
Status indicators are as follows: 1 = draft regulation not published; 2 = draft regulation published; 3 = final rule
published; 4 = final rule in force; 5 = not applicable.
3
This column denotes the year in which the draft or final rule was or is expected to be published or when the final
rule was or will be in force. NA means that the jurisdiction is not planning to implement this component or is
planning to implement the component but does not know the year in which it will be implemented.

33/58
 G-SIBs NA bank licensees.
5

Bangladesh Liq (LCR) 1 2014

Def cap 1 2014
Risk cov 1 2016
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 1 2014
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 1 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Barbados Liq (LCR) 1 2015
Def cap 1 2014
Risk cov 1 2015
Conserv 1 2017
C-cycl 1 2017
LR 1 2017
D-SIBs 1 2017
G-SIBs 1 2017
Belarus Liq (LCR) 3 2012-2013 Basel III capital, leverage and liquidity standards were
Def cap 3 2012 published in 2012, Basel III liquidity risk monitoring
Risk cov 5 NA tools in 2013.
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 3 2013
LR 3 2012
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Belize Liq (LCR) Belize is still using Basel I. Belize will commence
Def cap discussion in 2015 to implement Basel III.
Risk cov
Conserv
C-cycl
LR
D-SIBs
G-SIBs
Bermuda Liq (LCR) 1 2014 A Consultation Paper on Basel III implementation was
Def cap 1 2014 issued in Q3 2013 and during 2013 the Authority
Risk cov 1 2014 carried out a QIS in relation to capital and liquidity.
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 1 2014
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 1 2014
G-SIBs NA
Bhutan Liq (LCR) 1 2014 *Same as per Basel I.
Def cap * NA With Technical Assistance from the ADB, we are in the
Risk cov 5 NA process of drafting seven Marco Prudential
Regulations, namely: (i) Minimum ceiling on Leverage
Conserv 5 NA
Ratio; (ii) Countercyclical capital buffer; (iii) Distribution
C-cycl 1 2014 of profit; (iv) Sectoral capital requirement; (v) Time
LR 1 2014 varying capital provisioning; (vi) Debt to equity ratio;
D-SIBs 5 NA and (vii) Loan to value and loan to income restriction.
G-SIBs 5 NA
Bolivia Liq (LCR) 1 2015 La definición de capital contemplada en la Ley de
Def cap 4 Bancos y Entidades Financiera, se refiere que la
Risk cov 1 conformación de capital debe ser en efectivo, no
aceptándose otras modalidades.
Conserv 1 2015
Está en proyecto de aprobación durante gestión 2013
C-cycl 4 2008

34/58
 LR 1 una nueva "Ley de Servicios Financieros", que
D-SIBs 1 2015 reemplazará a la "Ley de Bancos y Entidades
G-SIBs Financieras", e incorporará las definiciones de Basilea
III, respecto al capital.
Desde 2008 está vigente un esquema de previsiones
cíclicas, con una finalidad semejante al colchón
anticíclico de Basilea III.

The Banking Law specifies that the capital contribution

must be paid out in cash; any other kind of capital is
not accepted.
A new Financial Services Law is now in draft form and
should be enacted in 2013. It will replace the current
Banking Law and will include definitions of Basel III in
relation to capital.
A regulation has been in force since 2008 on
countercyclical provisioning, with the same objectives
as those of the Basel III buffers.
Bosnia and Liq (LCR) 1 2016 In the process of public hearing to the Bank
Herzegovina Def cap 1 2016 Association of BiH regarding bylaws – decree on
Risk cov 1 2016 minimum standards for capital management in banks,
representing one of the transitional sublegal Acts to the
Conserv 2 2016
full implementation under Basel III and EU directives. It
C-cycl 2 2016 contains capital items as per Basel I and capital
LR 2 2015 conversion buffer and countercyclical buffer, and also
D-SIBs 2 2016 includes financial leverage, modified from Basel III. In
G-SIBs 5 NA June 2013, the Central Bank of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Banking Agency of the FBiH, and
Banking Agency of RS signed the Memorandum on the
Establishment of the Methodology for Determining the
List of Systemically Significant Banks in BiH. It would
make it possible to apply different supervisory
approaches for such institutions on a case by case
basis, with a view to maintaining financial stability in
BiH. On the basis of an analysis of indicators
recommended by the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision (BCBS) for measuring the systemic
importance of institutions, a process was launched to
develop indicators that are tailored to the specific
characteristics of the banking system in BiH. The main
factors which influenced the selection of indicators
within four pre-determined criteria (size,
interconnectedness, substitutability and complexity)
were the relevance of the indicators, bearing in mind
the characteristics of the banking system in BiH, and
the availability of data. The Methodology for
Determining the List of Systemically Significant Banks
in BiH will be used as a basis for drafting regulation on
SIFIs. This Act results from the Technical Mission of
the IMF.
Botswana Liq (LCR) 1 2014 The central bank has adopted the capital definition
Def cap 2 Dec 2013 under Basel III; however, capital buffers and leverage
Risk cov 5 NA ratios have been deferred to a later stage. The central
bank has also drafted liquidity guidelines based on the
Conserv 5 NA
new liquidity standards and the draft has been sent to
C-cycl 5 NA the market for comment and will be finalised by the end
LR 5 NA of 2014.
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
British Virgin Liq (LCR) 1 2015-2017
Islands Def cap 1 2015-2017
Risk cov 1 2015-2017
Conserv 1 2015-2017

35/58
 C-cycl 1 2015-2017
LR 1 2015-2017
D-SIBs 1 2015-2017
G-SIBs 1 2015-2017
Cayman Liq (LCR) 1 2015
Islands Def cap 1 2015
Risk cov 1 2015
Conserv 1 2015
C-cycl 1 2015
LR 1 2015
D-SIBs 1 2015
G-SIBs 1 2015
Chile Liq (LCR) 1 2016 These are only estimations since approval from
Def cap 1 2016 Congress is required before implementation.
Risk cov 1 2016
Conserv 1 2016
C-cycl 1 2016
LR 1 2016
D-SIBs 1 2016
G-SIBs 5 NA
Chinese Liq (LCR) 1* 2014 *Draft Regulation has been circulated to banks for
Taipei Def cap 4 2013 comments. First QIS is done.
Risk cov 4 2013 **All banks are deemed systemically important in the
local banking market.
Conserv 4 2013
C-cycl 4 2013
LR 4 2013
D-SIBs 5 **
G-SIBs 5 NA
Colombia Liq (LCR) 4 2012 Although we do not implement the countercyclical
Def cap 4 2013 capital buffer, the credit risk assessment includes a
Risk cov 5 NA countercyclical provision. Since the Reference Models
were developed (provisions based in expected losses),
Conserv 5 NA
the Colombian provision system conceived a counter
C-cycl 5 NA cyclical provision. Even though this buffer exists since
LR 5 NA 2007, when the first model was implemented, just until
D-SIBs 1 2012 2009, the SFC defined the methodology to be applied
G-SIBs 5 NA when the supervised institutions face good or bad
times. The supervised institutions are allowed to
consume their counter cyclical savings during bad
times and must accumulate them during good times.
The bad/good times are defined according to four
indicators.
At this point, it is important to clarify that the counter
cyclical provision is considered on an individual basis
(meaning it is linked to each debtor risk profile).
Additionally, the rule that specifies the way in which the
buffer may be used depends exclusively on the
situation of each institution but not on the overall
macroeconomic conditions.
Congo, Liq (LCR) 2016 We plan to make the draft rules for these Basel III
Democratic Def cap 1 2016 policies (including the definition of capital) by the end
Republic of Risk cov 2016 of 2015. The Central Bank of Congo has plans for
the implementing Basel III.
Conserv 1 2016
C-cycl 1 2016
LR 1 2016
D-SIBs 1 2016
G-SIBs 2016
Cook Islands Liq (LCR) 5 NA

36/58
 Def cap 5 NA
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA

Costa Rica Liq (LCR) 2 2019 *In general, commercial banks have capitalisation and
(final rule in internal capital composition levels that allow them to
force) comply with Basel standards.
Def cap 1 2016* **Risk classifications from agencies are not used for
(final rule in computing capital in the loan portfolio, so most
force borrowers are weighted under 100%. Regarding
Risk cov 1 NA** investment portfolios, the amount of foreign sovereign
issuers or other foreign issuers is insignificant. Foreign
Conserv 1 2019***
currency instruments from the Central Bank of Costa
(draft
Rica and the Government of Costa Rica are currently
regulation
weighted under 75%, following the Weights Table, for
published)
an international country risk classification of BB. These
C-cycl 1 2016**** instruments in domestic currency are weighted as 0%.
(final rule in ***Effective implementation of the capital conservation
force) buffer requires legal changes, ie the power to restrict
LR 1 NA***** distribution of profits has to be established.
D-SIBs 1 NA ****Establishment of dynamic provisions is currently
G-SIBs 1 NA under analysis. So far, incorporation of countercyclical
measures via capital is not envisaged.
*****At current capitalisation levels, financial entities’
leverage levels are lower than those suggested by the
BCBS.
Curaçao and Liq (LCR) 5 NA
Sint Maarten Def cap 5 NA
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Dominican Liq (LCR) 1 2015 *The level of capitalisation of Dominican banks is
Republic Def cap 5 NA* above international standards: in 2013, the Tier 1
Risk cov 1 2015 capital ratio was estimated at 12.45%, higher than the
4.5% required by Basel III.
Conserv 5 NA
Dates are subject to Monetary Board approval, which
C-cycl 5 NA is the regulatory body of the Dominican Financial
LR 5 NA System.
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Eastern Liq (LCR) 5 NA A decision has not been taken by the Eastern
Caribbean Def cap 5 NA Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB) regarding the
Central Bank Risk cov 5 NA possible implementation of Basel III in the Eastern
Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU). A Steering
Conserv 5 NA
Committee has been established to investigate the
C-cycl 5 NA applicability of the framework for the region and to
LR 5 NA propose a roadmap for implementation.
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA

37/58
Ecuador Liq (LCR) 1 2017
Def cap 1 2017
Risk cov 1 2018
Conserv 1 2018
C-cycl 1 2017
LR 1 2018
D-SIBs 1 +2017
G-SIBs 1 +2017
Egypt Liq (LCR) 2 2011 Liquidity standard (LCR): Draft regulation (discussion
Def cap 5 2012 paper) on liquidity risk was published in 2011. This
Risk cov 1 NA regulation introduced both the LCR and the NSFR.
Publishing the final rule is postponed until the Egyptian
Conserv 5 2016
banking sector digests the new Pillar 1 framework. The
C-cycl 5 2016 final rule will take into consideration Basel III
LR 1 2015 amendments dated Jan 2013.
D-SIBs 1 2016 Risk Coverage (Counterparty Credit Risk (CCR)):
G-SIBs 1 NA Basel III mainly focuses on very advanced approaches
such as the Effective EPE metric, which is calculated
based on data that include a stress period and VaR
models to capture CCR for complicated derivative
transactions that currently are not in keeping with the
nature of Egyptian market. Therefore, the central bank
has decided to apply a highly simplified mark-to-market
approach for CCR as illustrated under Basel II.
However, the central bank will consider these
enhancements when the internal models approach is
applied in the future.
El Salvador Liq (LCR) 1 2017 El Salvador expects to have a plan to implement
Def cap 1 Dec 2017 international standards in 2015.
Risk cov 1 Dec 2017
Conserv 1 Dec 2017
C-cycl 1 Dec 2017
LR 1 Dec 2017
D-SIBs
G-SIBs
Fiji Liq (LCR) 1 NA The Banking Supervision Policy Statement (BSPS) on
Def cap 1 NA capital adequacy requirements sets a minimum total
Risk cov 1 NA capital ratio of 12% for banks and 15% for credit
institutions. Prior to 2010, these levels were required at
Conserv 1 NA
8% for banks and 10% for credit institutions. The
C-cycl 1 NA increase was made to institute a capital buffer above
LR 1 NA the required level of capital.
D-SIBs 1 NA A draft BSPS addressing market risk has been drafted
G-SIBs 1 NA for internal review and is expected to be published in
the short term. There are also plans to revise the
capital adequacy requirements in the medium term –
towards Basel III.
Gambia Liq (LCR) 1 NA While there is no formal regulation issued to the banks
Def cap 1 NA in relation to the above, they are encouraged to
Risk cov 1 NA comply, and currently are largely in compliance, with
the Basel III capital definition, Capital Conversion
Conserv 1 NA
Buffer and the Leverage Ratio.
C-cycl 1 NA
LR 1 NA
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 1 NA
Georgia Liq (LCR) 2 2014 Current minimum Basel II/III capital ratio (10.5%)
Def cap 3 2013 incorporates 2.5% requirement for the conservation
Risk cov 5 NA buffer. At a later stage, we expect to segregate it

38/58
 Conserv 1 2014 explicitly by defining minimum ratio at 8%. As for the
C-cycl 1 2014 counter-cyclical buffer, it is to some extent accounted
LR 5 NA for under current ratios in the form of additional 75%
risk weighting for foreign currency denominated
D-SIBs 1 Not yet
exposures (CICR), which NBG has been using
decided
historically for countercyclical capital requirements
G-SIBs 5 NA depending on the credit cycle well before Basel’s
countercyclical framework was defined. It is expected
that together with the introduction of an additional
countercyclical buffer, the risk weight for CICR would
decrease so that part of the current capital charge
intended for countercyclical purposes would be netted
(meaning that RWA would be decreased). The
countercyclical buffer would normally range between 0
and 2.5% based on the status of the credit cycle. At the
moment, as overheating is not evidenced, existing
capital requirements incorporate only part of the 2.5%
countercyclical buffer.
Ghana Liq (LCR) 5 NA We plan to look at Basel II/III together, and implement
Def cap 5 NA aspects that are relevant to Ghana's banking system
Risk cov 5 NA once we embark on the process.
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Gibraltar Liq (LCR) 2 2013 Gibraltar is part of the EU and therefore transposes all
Def cap 2 2013 EU directives. The Directive and Regulations
Risk cov 2 2013 implementing Basel III have not yet been finalised and
therefore the timing of the Gibraltar legislation is
Conserv 2 2013
dependent on and will be determined by the timing of
C-cycl 2 2013 the final publication of CRD IV and the Implementing
LR 2 2013 technical standards to be issued by the EBA
D-SIBs 2 2013 (European Banking Authority).
G-SIBs 2 2013
Guatemala Liq (LCR) 1 To be
defined
Def cap 1 To be
defined
Risk cov 1 To be
defined
Conserv 1 To be
defined
C-cycl 1 To be
defined
LR 1 To be
defined
D-SIBs 1 To be
defined
G-SIBs 5 NA
Guernsey Liq (LCR) 1 NA Guernsey published a high-level paper in 2012, in
Def cap 1 NA conjunction with the Jersey and Isle of Man
Risk cov 1 NA supervisors, on the extent to which Basel Ill might be
implemented in the Crown Dependencies. The project
Conserv 1 NA
to consider Basel Ill is therefore under way but no
C-cycl 1 NA timelines for adoption have been decided.
LR 1 NA
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Guinea, Liq (LCR) We don’t use Basel III.
Republic of Def cap

39/58
 Risk cov
Conserv
C-cycl
LR
D-SIBs
G-SIBs
Guyana Liq (LCR) To be
1
determined
Def cap To be
1
determined
Risk cov To be
1
determined
Conserv To be
1
determined
C-cycl To be
1
determined
LR 1 To be
determined
D-SIBs 1 To be
determined
G-SIBs To be
1
determined
Haiti Liq (LCR) 1 NA
Def cap 1 NA
Risk cov 1 NA
Conserv 1 NA
C-cycl 1 NA
LR 1 NA
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 1 NA
Honduras Liq (LCR) 1 NA The Financial System Institutions Rule set the
Def cap 1 2004 definition of capital, updated by the Financial System
Risk cov 1 NA Rule (2004) even though it does not imply the Basel III
concept of capital.
Conserv 1 NA
C-cycl 1 NA
LR 1 NA
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 1 NA
Iceland Liq (LCR) 4 2013 The implementation of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV)
Def cap 2 2013 and Regulation (EU) no. 575/2013 (CRR) is under way
Risk cov 2 2013 in Iceland. Basel III will be fully implemented through
the implementation of the CRD IV package in Iceland,
Conserv 2 2014
which is scheduled to be finished in early 2015.
C-cycl 1 2015 However, early steps have been taken through new
LR 2 2013 regulation on the liquidity coverage ratio. The CRR is
D-SIBs 1 2015 currently treated as a published draft regulation.
G-SIBs 1 2015 Delays in the implementation of the CRD IV package in
Iceland and other EEA countries have been caused by
the fact that the acts have not been incorporated into
the EEA agreement.
Isle of Man Liq (LCR) 1 2014-2018 The Isle of Man published a high-level discussion
Def cap 1 2014-2018 paper in 2012 on how Basel III might be implemented.
Risk cov 1 2014-2018 Focused discussion papers followed in early 2014
which provide draft proposals covering: capital
Conserv 1 2014-2018
(definition, buffers) and D-SIBs (including recovery and
C-cycl 1 2014-2018 resolution plans). A paper covering liquidity is
LR 1 2014-2018 proposed in the first half of 2014. Draft regulations will
D-SIBs 1 2014-2018 follow once proposals have been discussed further
G-SIBs 5 NA with banks across the range of Basel III topics. These

40/58
 draft regulations are expected in 2015.
Jamaica Liq (LCR) 1 2015
Def cap 1 2015
Risk cov 1 2016
Conserv 1 2016
C-cycl 1 2016
LR 1 2015
D-SIBs 1 2016
G-SIBs 1 2016
Jersey Liq (LCR) The scope of Basel III states that it should be applied
Def cap at consolidated level to internationally active banks. As
Risk cov such, it is not applicable to any bank in Jersey and the
Commission’s bank licensing policy makes it likely that
Conserv
this will remain the case. However, aspects of Basel III
C-cycl are being considered, where relevant to Jersey banks,
LR including those parts that modify elements of Basel II
D-SIBs that have been adopted in Jersey. A Discussion Paper
G-SIBs was issued in September 2012, jointly with the
counterparts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and this
has been followed by further Discussion Papers on the
“definition of capital” and “D-SIB” elements of Basel III,
with further Discussion Papers planned on other
relevant elements in 2014. Industry consultations will
follow in due course, setting out proposals for
implementation where appropriate.
Jordan Liq (LCR) 1 End of 2014 The Central Bank of Jordan (CBJ) issued instructions
Def cap 1 End of 2013 that required banks to provide the CBJ with an impact
Risk cov 1 End of 2013 study at the end of June 2012 based on 31 December
2011 data. Accordingly, the CBJ is in the process of
Conserv 1 End of 2013
drafting regulations regarding capital at the end of
C-cycl 1 End of 2013 2013. As for liquidity and based on national discretion,
LR 1 End of 2013 the regulations will be drafted by the end of 2014.
D-SIBs 1 End of 2014
G-SIBs 5
Kenya Liq (LCR) 4 2013 The LCR was included as part of Liquidity Risk
Def cap 4 2013 Management, to guide banks on good practices in
Risk cov 5 NA liquidity management.
Conserv 4 2013
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 4 2013
G-SIBs 5 NA
Kosovo Liq (LCR) 2/4 2014+ With the new Regulation on Liquidity Risk
Def cap 2/4 2014+ Management, two new liquidity ratios are introduced
Risk cov 5 which are applicable since the beginning of 2013;
however, they are not the same with the Basel III
Conserv 5
Liquidity Ratios in terms of the methodology used to
C-cycl 5 calculate these ratios. Also, the definition of capital has
LR 2/4 2014+ been amended, but it is still not completely harmonised
D-SIBs 5 with the Basel II or Basel III standards, although we
G-SIBs 5 moved from the Basel I definition of capital by adding
some additional features in line with the Basel II
standard definition of capital. We also introduced a
Leverage Ratio which is in force since 2013; however,
this is also calculated differently compared with the
Leverage Ratio introduced with Basel III. The Leverage
Ratio introduced in our regulation is calculated simply
as the ratio of total equity to total assets, which shall
not be less than 7%. During 2013, there were no
substantial changes regarding the implementation of
Basel III requirements, except that we prepared a draft

41/58
 Mortgage Regulation which is supposed to be issued
this year. The Mortgage Regulation is supposed to
adopt Basel III risk weights for mortgages.
Kuwait Liq (LCR) 1 2014
Def cap 4 2014
Risk cov 4 2014
Conserv 4 2014
C-cycl 3 2014
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 3 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Kyrgyz Liq (LCR) 1 NA
Republic Def cap 1 NA
Risk cov 1 NA
Conserv 1 NA
C-cycl 1 NA
LR 1 NA
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 1 NA
Lebanon Liq (LCR) 2 2013 After conducting a comprehensive Quantitative Impact
Def cap 4 2011 Study (QIS) in the first half of 2011, the central bank
Risk cov 5 NA and the BCC have concluded a phase-in arrangement
for the implementation of Basel III in Lebanon. This
Conserv 3 2014
arrangement was published in December 2011.
C-cycl 1 2015 Banks in Lebanon have to reach a new set of target
LR 2 2014 capital ratios (including conservation buffer): 8% for
D-SIBs 1 2015 Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1), 10% for Tier 1 Capital
G-SIBs 5 NA (T1) and 12% for Total Capital (TC). Banks should
comply with these minimum ratios gradually starting
from the end of 2012 and until the end of 2015.
A QIS on Liquidity (LCR) was submitted by banks in
October 2013. Based on the results of this impact
study, the BCC will issue the final guidelines on LCR.
The central bank issued, in March 2014, the guidelines
on the criteria for inclusion of capital instruments in
CET1, AT1 and T2 and on the definition of regulatory
capital (in line with Basel III definition).
Lesotho Liq (LCR) 5 NA Lesotho intends to adopt the new definition of capital
Def cap 1 2015 adequacy only. As such, the capital adequacy
Risk cov 5 NA requirement regulations are to be amended
accordingly by 2015.
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Liberia Liq (LCR) 4 2013
Def cap 4 2013
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 4 2013
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Liechtenstein Liq (LCR) 1 2013 Due to the fact that there is, as yet, no final version of
Def cap 1 2013 the CRD/CRR, Liechtenstein has not implemented
Risk cov 1 2013 anything so far.
Conserv 1 2013
C-cycl 1 2013

42/58
 LR 1 2013
D-SIBs
G-SIBs
Macao SAR, Liq (LCR) 1 2015
China Def cap 1 2016
Risk cov 1 2016
Conserv 1 2016
C-cycl 1 2016
LR 1 2016
D-SIBs 1 2016
G-SIBs 5 NA
Macedonia, Liq (LCR) 4 2009 LCR: The liquidity ratios defined with the National Bank
FYR Def cap 4 2012 of the Republic of Macedonia (NBRM)’s regulations are
Risk cov 1 2016 not fully in line with the Basel III requirements, but
represent a good starting base for further compliance,
Conserv 1 2014
which is under way.
C-cycl 1 2014 Definition of capital: the Macedonian capital adequacy
LR 1 2014 framework is quite conservative regarding the definition
D-SIBs 1 2014 of eligible capital instruments. Thus, the definition of
G-SIBs 5 NA Tier 1 capital is almost equal to the definition of CET,
as defined in Basel III. In 2012, the NBRM additionally
strengthened the definition of capital, in line with the
Basel III requirements. Further compliance is under
way.
D-SIB: The NBRM has developed a draft methodology
for identification of D-SIBs, which will be published
after appropriate internal testing of its adequacy.
Madagascar Liq (LCR) 5 NA Ongoing research and study. No official decision of
Def cap 1 2014 authority for the moment.
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 1 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Malawi Liq (LCR) 1 2016 Banks are since 1 January 2013 required to submit
Def cap 1 2018 monthly returns that include templates for calculation of
Risk cov 5 NA the LCR and the leverage ratio in preparation for the
issuance of new bank leverage and liquidity standards.
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 1 2016
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Malaysia Liq (LCR) 1 2015 The year refers to that in which the final rule has or is
Def cap 4 2013 expected to come into force. The phase-in
Risk cov 1 NA arrangement for the Basel III reform package in
Malaysia has been communicated to the industry in a
Conserv 1 2016 publication dated 16 December 2011, which is
C-cycl 1 2016 available on the Bank’s website.
LR 1 2018 The central bank finalised the definition of capital rules
D-SIBs 1 NA in November 2012 and the rules have been effective
G-SIBs 1 NA since 1 January 2013. The “observation period” for the
leverage ratio and liquidity standards has been
ongoing since 2012. The central bank aims to issue the
final standard for the LCR in 2014, and the final rule is
expected to come into force beginning January 2015.
The central bank does not expect to implement the risk
coverage enhancements as it has assessed that
current requirements sufficiently capture the nature
and complexity of derivative activities conducted by

43/58
 banking institutions (note: the Internal Models Method
for counterparty credit risk is currently not offered in
Malaysia). The central bank is currently assessing the
need to adopt the D-SIB rules in Malaysia, accounting
for factors such as safeguards and measures to deal
with systemically important institutions and the extent
to which domestic banking institutions have evolved
into larger and complex financial groups.
Mauritius Liq (LCR) 1 NA It is envisaged that the final rule for definition of capital
Def cap 2 2013 and capital conservation buffer will be issued in 2014.
Risk cov 1 NA
Conserv 2 2013
C-cycl 1 NA
LR 1 NA
D-SIBs 2 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Moldova Liq (LCR) 5 NA Currently, the National Bank of Moldova is applying a
Def cap 5 NA capital adequacy regime similar to the Basel I Capital
Risk cov 5 NA Accord to all banks in the Republic of Moldova. The
banks shall have and maintain the risk weighted capital
Conserv 5 NA
adequacy ratio at a level of at least 16 percent. Also, in
C-cycl 5 NA order to support the National Bank in the gradual
LR 5 NA harmonisation with the EU Directive on capital
D-SIBs 5 NA requirements (CRD), reflecting Basel II/III rules for
G-SIBs 5 NA capital measurement and capital standards in the
prudential regulations, the National Bank intends to
benefit from a Twinning project and has recently
developed a Twinning Fiche, which has been sent to
EC services in Brussels for approval and, further,
proceeding to the project itself.
Montenegro Liq (LCR) 1 2016
Def cap 1 2016
Risk cov 1 2016
Conserv 1 2016
C-cycl 1 2016
LR 1 2016
D-SIBs 1 2016
G-SIBs 1 2016
Morocco Liq (LCR) 4 2014 LCR: First reporting in March 2014. A graduated
Def cap 4 2014 approach can be adopted by banks with a minimum
Risk cov 5 ratio of 60% in July 2015 rising in equal steps to reach
100% in July 2019. Capital: First reporting in June
Conserv 4 2014
2014. A graduated approach can be adopted by banks
C-cycl 1 using Basel III transitional arrangements with local
LR 1 adaptations based on the results of local studies. In
D-SIBs 1 2014 order to prepare banks for the implementation of Basel
G-SIBs 5 III requirements, the central bank decided to increase
the minimum capital requirement from 10% to 12% in
2013 and to set a Tier 1 minimum ratio of 9%.
Mozambique Liq (LCR) 5 NA
Def cap 5 NA
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Namibia Liq (LCR) 1 The Bank of Namibia will finalise its position paper in
Def cap 1 2016 2014 and commence with implementation in 2015

44/58
 Risk cov 1 2016 towards 2018.
Conserv 1 2016
C-cycl 1
LR 4
D-SIBs 1
G-SIBs
Nepal Liq (LCR) 2 2012
Def cap 1 2014
Risk cov 1 2014
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 1 2014
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 1 Not decided
G-SIBs 5 NA
New Zealand Liq (LCR) 4 2010 We have not implemented the LCR requirement, but
Def cap 4 2013 implemented an alternative, broadly equivalent,
Risk cov 4 2013 liquidity standard prior to Basel III. We do not plan to
implement the leverage ratio, D-SIB, or G-SIB
Conserv 4 2013
requirements.
C-cycl 4 2014
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Nigeria Liq (LCR) 1 2015 Implementation of Basel III is being considered after
Def cap 1 2014 full adoption of Basel II.
Risk cov 1 2015
Conserv 1 2015
C-cycl 1 2015
LR 1 2015
D-SIBs 1 2014
G-SIBs 1 2014
Norway Liq (LCR) 1 2015 LCR and Leverage Ratio: will probably follow the CRD
Def cap 2 2014 IV implementation plan.
Risk cov 2 2014
Conserv 4 2013
C-cycl 4 2013
LR 1 2018
D-SIBs 4 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Oman Liq (LCR) 1 2014 Final guidelines on regulatory capital and composition
Def cap 4 2013 of capital disclosure requirements under Basel III were
Risk cov 1 NA issued in November 2013. Capital conservation buffer
and countercyclical buffer (if needed) are applicable
Conserv 4 2013
beginning from 1 January 2014. Observation period for
C-cycl 4 2013 Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Net Stable Funding Ratio
LR 1 NA also commenced in 2013.
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 1 NA
Pakistan Liq (LCR) 1 2015
Def cap 4 2013
Risk cov 1 2015
Conserv 3 2013
C-cycl 1 2015
LR 3 2013
D-SIBs 1 2015
G-SIBs 1 2015
Panama Liq (LCR) 1 2014 We have identified D-SIBs for supervision and

45/58
 Def cap 1 2014 monitoring purposes. No regulation will be made.
Risk cov 1 2015
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 1 2014
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Papua New Liq (LCR) 1 2016 The draft standards aim to meet the principles
Guinea Def cap 1 2015 underpinning Basel II and III, while adopting
Risk cov 5 NA requirements to ensure sustainable application in
Papua New Guinea.
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 1 2015
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Paraguay Liq (LCR) 1 2016 Nuestra normativa prevé la definición de capital en dos
Def cap 1 2016 niveles pero su composición no recoge exactamente lo
Risk cov 1 2016 establecido por Basilea III. Cabe señalar que la rigidez
de nuestra legislación, en lo que hace al capital
Conserv 1 2016
regulatorio, nos impide adecuarnos a las
C-cycl 1 2016 recomendaciones. No obstante, la misma contiene un
LR 1 2016 elemento adicional al capital integrado que tiene la
D-SIBs 1 2016 capacidad de absorber perdidas, la Reserva Legal, las
G-SIBs 5 NA entidades bancarias estan obligadas a destinar el 20%
de sus utilidades anuales hasta completar el 100% del
capital minimo exigido.
Peru Liq (LCR) 4 2014* *Companies must meet a minimum LCR of 100% in
Def cap 1 2013** both local currency and foreign currency. However, the
Risk cov 5 NA SBS has established an adjustment period: during
2014, the minimum is 80%; during 2015, the minimum
Conserv 4 2012***
will be 90%; and finally, starting in January 2016, the
C-cycl 4 2012*** minimum ratio will be 100%.
LR 5 NA**** **Changing the definition of capital is still under
D-SIBs 4 2012*** evaluation as it is necessary to get congressional
G-SIBs 5 NA approval to modify the General Banking Law.
***The SBS issued rules to require capital above the
minimum established in the General Banking Law. The
regulation set up cyclical and countercyclical buffers
according to the risk profile of financial institutions, and
further buffers for the major banks in Peru. Rules are in
force since July 2012.
****The SBS is currently evaluating the convenience of
a minimum leverage ratio requirement.
Philippines Liq (LCR) 1 2014 *In the meantime, the central bank does not envision
Def cap 4 Published in adopting the countercyclical capital buffer.
2013 / Took
effect in Jan
2014
Risk cov 2 2013
Conserv 4 Published in
2013 / Took
effect in Jan
2014
C-cycl 1 NA*
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 2 2013
G-SIBs 5 NA
Qatar Liq (LCR) 4 Jan 2014 *Counterparty credit risk for OTC, CVA risk charge for
Def cap 4 Jan 2014 OTC and counterparty credit risk for credit derivatives

46/58
 Risk cov 4* Jan 2014 included in Basel III regulations.
Conserv 4 Jan 2014 **Under Supervisory Observation since August 2012 –
Implementati expected to be finalised by end-2014.
C-cycl on expected ***QIS for banking sector is being undertaken for
from 2016 setting up a framework.
****QIS of the banking sector is under way for setting
4** Aug 2012
up a framework – banks will be notified of the
under
classification by the second half of 2014 and thereafter
Supervisory
banks will be required to put in place a Recovery &
Observation
Resolution Plan; Capital Charge will be effective from
– and final
LR 2016.
regulation is
expected to
be Capital requirements & Buffers (as % to RWA)
finalised by CET1 T1 Total
end-2014
Minimum 6% 8% 10%
D-SIBs 4*** **** Capital
G-SIBs Conservation Buffer 2.50%
(CCB)
Minimum Capital +
8.50% 10.50% 12.50%
CCB

National implementation of Basel III requirements

started with effect from January 2014. Minimum Capital
and CCB requirements were not phased in and are
implemented with effect from January 2014.
Supervisory deductions and all other deductions were
applicable from January 2014. Currently, the QCB is
involved in having a framework for evaluating and
classification of D-SIB banks. A QIS is under way in
order to set the framework and classify banks. Banks
will be informed of the D-SIB classification by the
second half of 2014 and thereafter banks will be
required to put in place a Recovery & Resolution Plan.
Capital charge for the D-SIB framework is expected to
be implemented by 2016. Work on establishing a
framework for Countercyclical Buffers would begin
after conclusion of D-SIB and is expected to be
implemented by 2016 as per Basel requirements.
Serbia Liq (LCR) 1 To be Some elements of Basel III have already been
defined introduced by the regulation based on Basel II, such
Def cap 1 To be as: (a) exclusion of Tier 3 capital from total regulatory
defined capital; and (b) introduction of a capital conservation
Risk cov 1 To be buffer which effectively disallows banks with CAR of
defined below 14.5% (or banks that would fall below CAR of
14.5% if dividends were to be paid) to pay out
Conserv 4 31 Dec 2011
dividends. The National Bank of Serbia Executive
C-cycl 1 To be Board adopted the Strategy for Implementation of
defined Basel III Standards in Serbia, which covers relevant
LR 1 To be issues under the new set of standards and envisages
defined three phases of Basel III implementation:
D-SIBs 1 To be • a preparatory phase to conduct a gap analysis
defined between the domestic regulatory framework and
G-SIBs 1 To be Basel 2.5 and Basel III standards, and a
defined comparative analysis of the dynamics of the
introduction and implementation of Basel III
standards by EU member states and neighbouring
countries, and to draw up an operational plan for
Basel III implementation;
• an impact assessment phase which includes
setting of the time frame for Basel III
implementation; and
• a legislation drafting phase, ie drafting of

47/58
 regulations implementing Basel 2.5 and Basel III.
The Strategy for Implementation of Basel III Standards
in Serbia envisaged that the drafting of main regulatory
changes in this area be done by the end of 2015, while
in 2014, the focus will be on properly assessing the
effects of implementation of Basel III, as well as
recognising key areas where change is needed.
Seychelles Liq (LCR) 5 NA As per previous comments, plans are in place to
Def cap 5 NA formulate an action plan on the adoption of Basel II
Risk cov 5 NA and III (and specifically tailored elements) and to
subsequently initiate immediate implementation.
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Sri Lanka Liq (LCR) 1 2014 Preliminary studies have been undertaken to evaluate
Def cap 1 2014 the impact on the banking industry of Basel III
Risk cov 1 2014 requirements. It was revealed that the adoption of the
new capital standards will not have a material impact
Conserv 1 2014
on Sri Lankan banks. As per the proposed timeline for
C-cycl 1 2014 the implementation of Basel III requirements
LR 1 2014 announced at the beginning of 2014, the Central Bank
D-SIBs 1 NA of Sri Lanka expects to issue draft guidelines on the
G-SIBs 1 NA above Basel III standards during 2014.
Tanzania Liq (LCR) 1 Same as in Basel II.
Def cap 1
Risk cov 1
Conserv 1
C-cycl 1
LR 1
D-SIBs 1
G-SIBs 1
Thailand Liq (LCR) 1 2014* *During the observation period, the BOT has
Def cap 4 2013 conducted the Quantitative Impact Studies (QIS), and
Risk cov 4 2013 (except analysed data to assess the impact as well as to
for CVA, ensure that the standard appropriately reflects the Thai
under context in terms of both the financial system and
consideration consumers’ behaviour.
**) **All Basel III capital rules including risk coverage
Conserv 3 2012*** frameworks have been in force since 1 January 2013,
C-cycl 3 2012*** except the CVA risk charge. The BOT will continue to
conduct the QIS.
LR 1 under
consideration ***The rules regarding the capital conservation buffer
and countercyclical buffer were published in 2012, but
D-SIBs 1 under
consideration
the former will not take effect until 2016 and the latter
only if the circumstances warrant it.
G-SIBs 5 NA
Trinidad and Liq (LCR) 1 2016* *Indicates the year in which policy proposals are
Tobago Def cap 5 NA expected to be issued for consultation. Consideration
Risk cov 5 NA is being given to the introduction of the liquidity
standards and leverage ratio via guidelines, which will
Conserv 5 NA
be used as an interim measure before the proposed
C-cycl 5 NA standards are finalised. These Basel III elements are to
LR 1 2016* be addressed subsequent to the enactment of the
D-SIBs 5 NA** revised capital adequacy standards. The policy
G-SIBs 5 NA proposals for the revision of the capital framework,
however, consider the introduction of the minimum
common equity Tier 1 ratio (which is to be introduced
on a phased basis over a three-year period to meet the
4.5% required under Basel III).
**The central bank is in the process of developing a

48/58
 framework for the supervision and regulation of
systemically important financial institutions, including
banks. It is expected that this framework will be
finalised by the end of 2014. Thereinafter, the drafting
of policy proposals to inform legislative amendments
will commence.
Tunisia Liq (LCR) 1 2014 Regulatory solvency ratio requirements and limits on
Def cap 1 NA banks’ exposures have been reviewed in July 2012 as
Risk cov NA follows: (1) The capital adequacy ratio is increased
from 8% to 9% as of end-2013 and to 10% as of end-
Conserv NA
2014; (2) A Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% as of end-2013
C-cycl NA and of 7% as of end-2014 was also instituted; (3)
LR NA Collective provisions requirements have been
D-SIBs NA introduced to cover hidden risks on current
G-SIBs NA commitments and commitments requiring a particular
follow-up (category 1). These provisions which are
retained from earnings are included among Tier 2
capital in the maximum limit of 1.25% of incurred risks;
and (4) Concentration risk limits have been tightened.
Liquidity risk requirements are being reviewed in light
of the Basel III international framework.
Turks and To be The Commission is currently developing a framework
Liq (LCR) 1
Caicos Islands determined for D-SIBs, which will be finalised and implemented in
To be 2014. Following implementation of Basel II, the
Def cap 1 Commission will then pursue implementation of other
determined
To be elements of the Basel III framework deemed
Risk cov 1 appropriate for the jurisdiction.
determined
To be
Conserv 1
determined
To be
C-cycl 1
determined
To be
LR 1
determined
D-SIBs 1 2014
G-SIBs 5 NA
Uganda Liq (LCR) 2 2014 Statutory instruments have been drafted and circulars
Def cap 2 2014 sent to the Supervised Financial Institutions.
Risk cov 1 2015
Conserv 2 2014
C-cycl 2 2014
LR 2 2015
D-SIBs 2 2014
G-SIBs 1 NA
United Arab Liq (LCR) 2 2014 The Basel III framework is scheduled for consultation
Emirates Def cap 1 2014 in 2014.
Risk cov 1 2014
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 1 2015
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 1 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
Uruguay Liq (LCR) 1 2004 *Studies to define countercyclical capital buffer
Def cap 4 Dec 2012 requirements during 2014.
Risk cov 5 NA
We already have countercyclical credit provisions.
Conserv 1 2015
According to market characteristics and because
C-cycl 1 * securitisation and the derivatives market are not very
LR 4 1991 developed, it is considered that a review of the
D-SIBs 4 Dec 2012 coverage of capital is not necessary in relation to these
G-SIBs 5 NA factors.

49/58
Vietnam Liq (LCR) 2 2014
Def cap 5 NA
Risk cov 5 NA
Conserv 5 NA
C-cycl 5 NA
LR 5 NA
D-SIBs 5 NA
G-SIBs 5 NA
West African Liq (LCR) 1 Rules will be defined at a later stage.
Monetary Def cap 1
Union Risk cov 1
(WAMU)
Conserv 1
C-cycl 1
LR 1
D-SIBs 1
G-SIBs 1
Zambia Liq (LCR) 1 2014 A provision for Basel III has been included in the draft
Def cap 1 2014 Banking and Financial Services Act. Detailed
Risk cov 1 2014 regulations, however, will only be worked on
commencing in 2014.
Conserv 1 2014
C-cycl 1 2014
LR 1 2014
D-SIBs 1 Not yet
decided
G-SIBs 1 Not yet
decided
Zimbabwe Liq (LCR) 1 2015 In order to cater for some of the capital buffers covered
Def cap 4 2012 in Basel III, the Reserve Bank increased capital ratios
Risk cov 1 2015 across the board as follows: Tier I capital from 6% to
8% and capital adequacy ratio from 10% to 12%.
Conserv 4 2012
C-cycl 4 2012
LR 4 2000
D-SIBs 1 2015
G-SIBs 1 2015

50/58
Annex 1: Email sent to jurisdictions

Dear Sir/Madam

As you know, the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) has in the past conducted surveys on
subjects of supervisory interest.

In 2013 we conducted a new survey to ascertain the status/plans of individual jurisdictions

regarding the implementation of Basel II, 2.5 and III using a methodology similar to that
adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The FSI published the
results of its 2013 survey by disclosing all information provided by individual countries.
(http://www.bis.org/fsi/fsiop2013.htm).

The FSI will be updating the results of this survey every year to enable jurisdictions (that are
not members of the BCBS and/or the European Union) to provide an up-to-date status report
on their implementation of Basel II, 2.5 and III. As with the 2013 survey, countries’ individual
responses will be published on our website.

As in the past, we would like to ask your agency to kindly participate in the survey. Please
forward this e-mail to a member of your staff to complete the questionnaire on your behalf.
https://response.easyresearch.se/s.asp?Id=134637225&Pwd=F94373C4
We also enclose an illustrative version of the electronic questionnaire that may be useful for
collecting relevant information as input for the online survey.

We would appreciate receiving your response by 14 March 2014. Any questions regarding
the survey can be directed to ([email protected]).

Thank you in advance for completing the survey.

Yours sincerely

Josef Tosovsky
Chairman
Financial Stability Institute
Bank for International Settlements

51/58
Annex 2: Survey questionnaire

Survey on Basel II, 2.5 and Basel III implementation

As in the past, we would be grateful if you could complete the questionnaire on the current status of your agency’s implementation of Basel II,
2.5 and III. The survey consists of three sections and should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. You can save your responses and
come back to them at any time before submitting the survey. Please ensure that all answers are submitted by one person only as the system
will not synchronise agency answers. You can save your responses and come back to them at any time before submitting the survey. Please
ensure that all answers are submitted by one person only as the system will not synchronise agency answers. Any questions regarding the
survey can be directed to [email protected]. We would appreciate receiving your response by 14 March 2014.

This survey uses the same definitions as the Basel Committee in its “Progress report on Basel III implementation” published in October 2013. For jurisdictions which
have decided not to implement all or part of the Basel II/ 2.5/ III rules, the status “Not applicable” has been added:

1. “Draft regulation not published”: this status corresponds to cases where no draft law, regulation or other official document has been made public to detail the
planned content of the domestic regulatory rules. It includes cases where a jurisdiction has communicated high-level information about its implementation plans but
not detailed rules.

2. “Draft regulation published”: this status corresponds to cases where a draft law, regulation or other official document is already publicly available, for example for
public consultation or legislative deliberations. The content of the document has to be specific enough to be implemented when adopted.

3. “Final rule published”: this status corresponds to cases where the domestic legal or regulatory framework has been finalised and approved but is still not
applicable to banks.

4. “Final rule in force”: This status corresponds to cases where the domestic legal and regulatory framework is already applied to banks.
5. “Not applicable”.

1. Contact information
Supervisory authority ________________________________________

Country __________________________________________________

Contact person (email, phone)_____________________________

52
2. Basel II Implementation

Please indicate the status of Basel II implementation in your jurisdiction:

Reference: 1. Draft regulation 2. Draft regulation 3. Final rule 4. Final rule in 5. Not
• Basel II: International convergence of capital
not published published published force applicable
measurement and capital standards: A revised
framework - comprehensive version (June 2006) Please tick () if applicable
Pillar 1 – Credit risk
Standardised approach
Foundation internal ratings-
based approach
Advanced internal ratings-based
approach
Pillar 1 – Operational risk
Basic indicator approach
Standardised / alternative
standardised approach
Advanced measurement
approaches
Pillar 2
Pillar 3

53
2. Basel II Implementation (contd.)
With reference to your responses above, please indicate the year in which (1) the draft regulation is likely to be
published, (2) the draft regulation was published, (3) the final rule was published, or (4) the final rule entered
into force, as appropriate. Where not applicable, please write “NA”.
Year

Pillar 1 – Credit risk

Standardised approach
Foundation internal ratings-based approach
Advanced internal ratings-based approach
Pillar 1 – Operational risk
Basic indicator approach
Standardised / alternative standardised approach
Advanced measurement approaches
Pillar 2
Pillar 3

Please provide additional comments, if any, on Basel II implementation:

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

54
3. Basel 2.5 Implementation

Please indicate the status of Basel 2.5 implementation in your jurisdiction:

References: 1. Draft regulation 2. Draft 3. Final rule 4. Final rule in 5. Not
• Enhancements to the Basel II framework (July 2009) not published regulation published force applicable
• Revisions to the Basel II market risk framework – updated as of
31 December 2010 (Feb 2011) published
• Guidelines for computing capital for incremental risk in the
trading book (July 2009) Please tick () if applicable
Enhancements to the Basel II framework
Revisions to Pillar 1
Supplemental Pillar 2 Guidance
Revisions to Pillar 3
Revisions to the Basel II market risk
framework

With reference to your responses above, please indicate the year in which (1) the draft regulation is likely to be published,
(2) the draft regulation was published, (3) the final rule was published, or (4) the final rule entered into force, as
appropriate. Where not applicable, please write “NA”.
Year

Enhancements to the Basel II framework

Revisions to Pillar 1
Supplemental Pillar 2 Guidance
Revisions to Pillar 3
Revisions to the Basel II market risk framework

Please provide additional comments, if any, on Basel 2.5 implementation:

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

55
4. Basel III Implementation
Please indicate the status of Basel III implementation in your jurisdiction:
References: 1. Draft regulation 2. Draft regulation 3. Final rule 4. Final rule in 5. Not applicable
• Basel III: The Liquidity Coverage Ratio and not published published published force
liquidity risk monitoring tools (Jan 2013)
• Basel III: A global regulatory framework for
more resilient banks and banking systems
Please tick () if applicable
(Dec 2010) – revised June 2011
• A framework for dealing with domestic
systemically important banks (Oct 2012)
• Global systemically important banks:
assessment methodology and the
additional loss absorbency requirements
(Nov 2011)

Liquidity standard (LCR)

Definition of capital
Risk coverage
(eg counterparty credit
risk)
Capital conservation buffer
Countercyclical capital
buffer
Leverage ratio
D-SIB
G-SIB

56
With reference to your responses above, please indicate the year in which (1) the draft regulation is likely to be published,
(2) the draft regulation was published, (3) the final rule was published, or (4) the final rule entered into force, as
appropriate. Where not applicable, please write “NA”.

Year

Liquidity standard
Definition of capital
Risk coverage
Capital conservation buffer
Countercyclical capital buffer
Leverage ratio
D-SIB
G-SIB

Please provide additional comments, if any, on Basel III implementation:

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

57